Dialectical Materialism

Alexander Spirkin First Published: © 1983 by Progress Publishers; Transcribed: by Robert Cymbala.

Table of Contents Introduction 3 Chapter 1. Philosophy As A World-View And A Methodology 6 1. What Is Philosophy? 6 2. Philosophy as a World-View 15 3. Philosophy as Methodology 26 4. Philosophy and Science 33 5. Philosophy and Art 41 Chapter 2. The System of Categories in Philosophical Thought 48 1. The Categories of Dialectics 48 2. Matter as the Substance of Everything That Exists 50 3. The Motion of Matter 59 4. Space and Time 62 5. The Principle of Universal Connection and Development 66 6. The Principle of Causality 70 7. System and Structure 79 8. Essence and Phenomenon 86 9. Quality and Quantity 107 10. Negation and Continuity 113 11. Contradiction and Harmony 118 Chapter 3. Consciousness of the World and the World of Consciousness 125 1. The General Concept of Consciousness and Mental Activity 1251

2. The Material and the Spiritual 139 3. Consciousness and Language 148 Chapter 4. The Theory of Knowledge and Creativity 159 1. General Concept of Cognition 159 2. Cognition and Practice 166 3. What Is Truth? 172 4. The Sensuous Image of the World 180 5.Thought 182 Chapter 5. On the Human Being and Being Human 207 1. What Is a Human Being? 207 2. The Human as the Biosocial 209 3. Man in the Realm of Nature 214 4. Man and Society 220 5. Man as a Personality 225 6. Man the Doer 240 7. Destiny, Freedom and Responsibility 252 8. Man and culture 267

Appendix A. Request to Readers 287 Appendix B. Front Matter 287 Colophon 2892

Introduction This book is a consideration of the essence of Marxist-Leninist philosophy, its central propositions and problems, its historical role and significance in the complex world of today.

We are witnessing, and participating in, enormous changes, changes that affect the very

foundations of human existence, that have drawn into the revolutionary process peoples who

one after the other are freeing themselves from centuries of social and national oppression and

attaining high levels of national and class consciousness. These revolutionary changes in society

are moving in step with ever more frequent and breathtaking discoveries in various spheres of

science and technology. Contemporary science has become a powerful and direct transforming

force in production and spurred into life a great scientific and technological revolution.

Socialist society, free from exploitation of man by man, is being built in accordance with a

strictly scientific social theory—Marxism-Leninism, whose philosophical basis is dialectical

materialism. Marxist-Leninist philosophy has throughout its history been inseparably and openly

connected with the revolutionary struggle of the working class, of all working people for their

intellectual, social and national emancipation—in this sense it is a committed philosophy. The

philosophy of Marx was a turning-point in the development of world philosophical thought. Its

great innovation was to make philosophy into a science, to remould the very purpose of

philosophical knowledge, which as it became established not only explained but helped to

transform the world. Marxist philosophy, as Lenin put it, has the integrity of something forged out

of a single piece of steel. It is a harmonious, consistent system of materialist views on nature,

society and the mind, on the general laws of their development.

This system was formed by generalising the greatest achievements of human thought and

the practice of the oppressed classes' revolutionary struggle against their oppressors as an

effective instrument for establishing the highest ideals to which humanity had aspired throughout

the ages.

The foundations were laid by the great thinkers Karl Marx and Frederick Engels. It was

they who formulated the basic propositions of the theory which was to become the banner of the

struggle for socialism, for true humanism, for the free development of every individual as a

condition for the free development of all members of society.

In the new historical conditions, when capitalism had entered the stage of imperialism, the

scientific feat of the founders of Marxism was continued by Lenin, who, proceeding from the

creative principles of their theory, analysed hitherto unknown processes, drew general

conclusions concerning their future course, and thus delineated the road into the future. Lenin's

work signalled a new stage in the development of Marxist philosophy as an eternally living and

creative theory. 3

other, irrational, emotional-intuitive roads to the truth and in the final analysis resorts like religion

to faith in the supernatural or adopts an intermediate position between science and religion.

"Philosophy, as I shall understand the word, is something intermediate between theology and

science. Like theology, it consists of speculations on matters as to which definite knowledge has,

so far, been unascertainable; but like science, it appeals to human reason rather than to

authority; whether that of tradition or that of revelation. Alldefinite knowledge—so I should

contend— belongs to science. But between theology and science there is a No Man's Land,

exposed to attack from both sides; this No Man's Land is philosophy."2 These words belong to

the eminent British philosopher Bertrand Russell, who was widely versed both in philosophy and

in the specialised sciences, and was both a writer and active in public affairs. He could have

been given the following answer. There are various philosophical theories, some of which are

indeed close to religion and provide its theoretical foundation. These are the idealist

philosophical doctrines. But there are also philosophical systems that are built on scientific

principles, that generalise the achievements of sciences and are themselves scientific both in

their theoretical principles and in their method. Dialectical material ism is precisely such a

philosophical system. The concept of scientificalness can also be applied to other philosophical

systems to the extent that they have a rational, objective content which truly reflects material and

spiritual reality and the trends of its development. It should be said that the measure of

scientificalness varies in philosophy. The content of this or that philosophical theory, despite

some errors, may contain much that is scientific in so far as it is theoretically and practically

provable and rests on scientific discovery, on overall human experience, and in so far as it has

beneficially influenced the formation of people's spiritual world, their world-view, has tended to

evolve heuristic methods of cognising the world and helped nations to transform nature and

social reality in the interests of mankind and society. Consequently the question should not be

stated in the abstract. Is philosophy scientific or unscientific in general? When speaking of the

scientific nature of philosophical cognition and its varying degrees of scientificalness it should be

stressed that philosophy is not simply a science but a different science, distinct from the concrete

sciences, an extremely generalised and, moreover, higher, universally synthetic form of

theoretical knowledge of the world—knowledge of the world at its key points, in its relationship to

man and the relationship of man to the world. And it is this distinction that constitutes the specific

nature of philosophical knowledge as such, while keeping it in a generally scientific framework.

Philosophical cognition—and this is its specific feature—is not directly aimed at producing

empirical research programmes and does not experiment with the help of technical apparatus. In

fact, the idea of the infinite nature of space and time, the admissibility of human free will, the

nature of consciousness or conscience as ideal phenomena—can such things be tested by

means of experiment? It is often claimed that philosophy possesses only one means of obtaining

the truth— 2 Bertrand Russell, History of Western Philosophy and Its Connection with Political and Social Circumstances from the Earliest Times to the Present Day, George Allen and Unwin Ltd., London, 1962, p. 13. 13

pure speculation or speculative thought. The extreme expression of this point of view was Plato's

advice that in order to understand the essence of things we should close our ears and eyes and

sink into reflection. This detachment from sensuous impressions is permissible and may even be

extremely effective but only on the basis of experience that has already been acquired by

perceptive observation and profound thought.

Philosophical cognition presupposes the development of a synthesising power of the

mind. This fruitful gift is a characteristic in some degree not only of the real philosophers, the

professionals, but also of thinkers in various other fields of knowledge and creative work who are

usually given the general title of "thinker". These are exceptional people with deeply generalising

and penetrating minds. Such, for example, were Leonardo da Vinci, Galileo, Descartes, Leibnitz,

Lomonosov, Goethe, Sechenov, Leo Tolstoy, Dostoyevsky, Einstein. Even if one has favourable

natural gifts, the ability to think philosophically requires long and persistent study, perhaps even

more than any other science. Why is this so? Because the truly philosophical mind is formed on

the basis of a vast experience of life, a mature personality with a broad horizon, a profound and

comprehensive knowledge of science and art, whereas in other fields in which encyclopaedic

knowledge is not so essential, highly gifted people often achieve striking scientific results in early

youth, especially, for example, in mathematics.

True philosophical cognition is then the scientific cognition of the world. It theoretically

substantiates, proves its principles and with equal thoroughness refutes other, untenable

positions. And in this respect it differs substantially, for example, from religious consciousness,

based on faith and revelation.

The thinking of, for example, the physicist, the biologist or the mathematician has its own

specific nature dictated by the nature of his subject. The specific nature of philosophical cognition

is likewise determined by the special features of its own subject. This specific nature, however,

does not put philosophical cognition outside the realm of science, as long as it keeps to the plane

of rational theoretically and factually provable argument. By the very nature of their professional

thinking the major philosophers have always been theoreticians with versatile minds, developed,

of course, to different degrees, depending on a multiplicity of natural, psychological and social

factors.

Philosophical cognition as a historically evolved means of knowing the world requires not

only a well-practised style of integral, systemic thinking based on the whole history of culture. It

also requires a certain level of both innate and educated, or self-educated, mental abilities and a

special, universally oriented frame of mind, including its emotional aspect, in which a person is

immersed during creative inspiration or meditation on what constitutes the subject-matter of this

special field of human knowledge, which has generalised the experience of scientific and social

revolutions, and of gigantic socio-political movements—the whole vast "laboratory" known as

world history. Philosophical cognition draws its principles from reality itself both directly and

through the prism of the whole culture, of everything amassed by the people, by scientists,

artists, politicians, teachers, doctors, and technologists. Today, without a profound,

encyclopaedic grasp of human culture as a whole, it is impossible to make an effective

investigation of socially significant philosophical problems. But for this encyclopaedic knowledge

is not enough. There must also be a special gift for integrative thinking, which must be developed

by uniting natural-scientific, mathematical and technical knowledge with knowledge of the

humanities, art, history and philosophy. Amid this virtually unencompassable ocean of knowledge

stands philosophical culture, which plays a tremendous role in forming man's intellectual world,

raising him to the level of an independently thinking individual, to civic self-consciousness. The

philosophical dimension of the human mind cannot be ignored.

In the modern world, very great significance belongs to the axiological function of

philosophical knowledge—the correlation or comparison of the aims and means of cognition and

action with humanitarian ideals, their social, ethical appraisal. A narrow "scientism" in the

interpretation of philosophy, that is to say, restriction of its field of generalisation by reliance

mainly on natural-scientific experiment, drastically reduces a person's actual relationship to

reality to a cognitive, and narrowly cognitive at that, relationship. But this does not correspond to

the actual state of affairs or to the interests of man himself and society. Philosophical cognition

steers a course composed of many vectors, and interacts with all forms of culture.

2. Philosophy as a World-View

The meaning of the term "world-view" and its significance in life. At first glance the term

"world-view" suggests a general view of the world—and no more. But the appearance of the

word does not reveal the full meaning of this complex intellectual phenomenon. A world-view, as

we understand it, is a system of generalised views of the surrounding world and man's place in it,

of man's relationship to the world and himself, and also the basic positions that people derive

from this general picture of the world, their beliefs, socio-political, moral and aesthetic ideals, the

principles by which they know and appraise material and spiritual events.

While it possesses a relatively independent existence in the sphere of social

consciousness, the world-view also functions as something individual. A person becomes an

individual when he forms a definite world-view. This process of formation indicates the maturity

not only of an individual but also of any given social group, social class or its party. The concept

of world-view, which was first encountered among the Greek sceptics, is substantially broader in

meaning than the concept of philosophy, moreover it has several different meanings.

We speak of the philosophical, the socio-political, the natural-scientific, the artistic, the

religious, and even the ordinary man's world-view. And this is quite natural. If we picture the

various types of world-view in the geometrical form of circles, the central position should be given

to the circle of the philosophical world-view. And this circle will intersect with all the others and 15

form their nucleus. In this way we find that the meaning people and social groups attach to the

term "world-view" is extremely diverse. But despite this diversity, every world-view reveals a

certain unity in the sense that it embraces a certain range of questions. For example, what is the

world that exists outside us? What is the relationship between spirit and matter? What is man?

What is his place in the universal interconnection of phenomena? How does man come to know

reality? What are good and evil? What is beautiful in life and in art? What laws guide the

development of society? The totality of the natural sciences forms a natural-scientific picture of

the world, and that of the social sciences yields a socio-historical picture of reality. What is a

picture of the world? It is a picture of how matter moves and how in the shape of the human

being it feels, thinks and poses goals. The creation of a general picture of the world is the task of

all fields of knowledge, including philosophy. In compressed form, general pictures of the world

are presented in universal encyclopaedias compiled at various historical stages to reflect the

intellectual achievements of mankind.

The world-view is by no means all the views and notions of the surrounding world, that is

to say, it is not simply a picture of the world taken in its integral form. Not a single specific

science can be identified with a world-view, although each science does contain a world-view

principle. For example, Darwin discovered the laws of the origin of species. This caused a

revolution in biology and evoked universal interest. Did these laws evoke such interest because

they were merely biological laws? Of course, not. They awakened such interest because they

helped us to understand various philosophical questions, the question of purpose in living nature,

the origin of man, and so on. The name of Einstein was made immortal by his discovery. But was

this discovery purely physical, a solution to some particular scientific problem? No, Einstein's

theory provided a key to the philosophical problem of the essence of space and time, their unity

with matter. Why did the ideas of Sechenov on cerebral reflexes create such a furore among

intellectuals? Not because they were merely physiological ideas, but because they solved certain

philosophical problems of the relationship between consciousness and the brain. We know what

a broad impact the principles of cybernetics have had. But cybernetics is not just a specific

scientific theory. Cybernetics, and also genetics, raise profound philosophical problems.

The world-view contains something more than scientific information. It is a crucial

regulative principle of all the vital relationships between man and social groups in their historical

development. With its roots in the whole system of the individual and society's spiritual needs

and interests, deter mined by human practice, by all man's accumulated experience, the world-

view in its turn exerts a tremendous influence on the life of society and the individual.

The world-view is usually compared with ideology and these two concepts are sometimes

treated as synonyms. But they intersect rather than coincide. Ideology embraces that part of the

world-view that is oriented on social, class relationships, on the interests of certain social groups 16 and, above all, on the phenomena of political power. The world-view, on the other hand, is oriented on the world as a whole, on the "man-universe" system.

The world-view may exist on the ordinary, everyday level generated by the empirical

conditions of life and experience handed down from generation to generation. It may also be

scientific, integrating the achievements of modem science concerning nature, society and

humanity itself.

The world-view is not only the content, but also the mode of thinking about reality, and

also the principles of life itself. An important component of the world-view is the ideals, the

cherished and decisive aims of life. The character of a person's notion of the world, his world-

view, facilitates the posing of certain goals which, when generalised, form a broad plan of life,

ideals, notions of wellbeing, good and evil, beauty, and progress, which give the world-view

tremendous power to inspire action. Knowledge becomes a world-view when it acquires the

character of conviction, of complete and unshakable confidence in the rightness of certain ideas,

views, principles, ideals, which take command of a person's soul, subordinate his actions, and

rule his conscience or, in other words, form bonds that cannot be escaped without betraying

oneself, set free "demons" that a person can conquer only by submitting to them and acting in

accordance with their overwhelming power. The world-view influences standards of behaviour, a

person's attitude to his work, to other people, the character of his aspirations in life, his everyday

existence, tastes and interests. It is a kind of spiritual prism through which everything around us

is perceived, felt and transformed.

As most people would agree, it is ideological conviction, that is to say, a certain view of

the world, that enables a person at a moment of mortal danger to overcome the instinct of self-

preservation, to sacrifice his own life, to perform feats of daring in the name of freedom from

oppression, in the name of scientific, moral, socio-political and other principles and ideals. The

world-view does not exist by itself, apart from specific historical individuals, social groups,

classes and parties. In one way or another, by reflecting certain phenomena of reality it

expresses their value orientations, their relationship to events of social life. Philosophy, too, as

the theoretical nucleus of the world-view, basically defends the interests of certain social groups

and thus has a class and, in this sense, a party character. Depending on whether the socio-

political interests of a given class coincide with the objective trend of history, its philosophical

positions are either progressive or reactionary. They may be optimistic or pessimistic, religious or

atheistic, idealist or materialist, humane or misanthropic. The whole history of philosophical

thought is, in fact, a struggle between various world-views, a struggle which has often raged so

fiercely that people preferred to be burnt at the stake, thrown into prison or condemned to penal

servitude rather than betray their chosen cause. So it is fundamentally wrong to imagine that

philosophers have always stood above earthly matters, above people's practical and political

interests, the interests of classes and parties, and accumulated knowledge merely for the sake of

knowledge, isolated themselves, like Diogenes in his tub, in the seclusion of their studies from

the stormy events of real life. 17

rational and the reason is interpreted as the substance, the basis of the universe. All things and

processes are thus spiritualised. Such a notion of the superhuman and supernatural spiritual

essence, the world reason, the world will, the absolute idea, is essentially a religious notion. For

example, in Hegel the "absolute idea" is quite often called simply god, an impersonal, objective,

logical process, while nature and the history of society are its guided other-being. Reason is the

soul of the world. It resides in the universe, it is its immanent essence. This implies that reason exists by itself in the world, apart from rational beings. The universe knows what it is, and from where, to where and how it is moving.

The idealist answer to the basic question of philosophy need not essentially be that

reason must be taken as primary. This is characteristic only of rationalist idealism. Irrationalist

forms of idealism take as their starting-point the blind will, the unconscious "vital urge":

everything in the world is wound up, programmed, as it were, striving towards some thing.

From the standpoint of subjective idealism it is only through inadequate knowledge that

we take the world as we see it to be the actually existing world. According to this conception, the

world does not exist apart from us, apart from our sense perceptions: to exist is to exist in

perception! And what we consider to be different from our sensations and existing apart from

them is composed of the diversity of our subjective sensuality: colour, sound, forms and other

qualities are only sensations and sets of such sensations form things. This implies that the world

is, so to speak, woven out of the same subjective material of which human dreams are

composed.

To the subjective idealists it appears that our efforts to reach beyond consciousness are

futile and it is therefore impossible to acknowledge the existence of any external world that is

independent of consciousness. It is a fact that we know the world only as it is given to man, to

the extent to which it is reflected in our consciousness through sensations. But this certainly does

not mean that the world when reflected in consciousness somehow dissolves in it like sugar in

water. All the experience of humanity, the history of science and practice show that the objects of

perception continue to exist even when we do not perceive them, i.e., before perception, during

perception and after perception. In short, their existence is not dependent on the act of their

perception.

The reader may legitimately ask: have there really been any philosophers who maintain

such a strange philosophy as subjective idealism, a philosophy that for so many centuries was

subjected not merely to criticism but to sarcastic ridicule? On the ordinary empirical level, surely

it is only madmen, and only a few of them, who can deny the independent existence of the world.

In practice, the subjective idealists (Berkeley, Fichte, Mach) probably did not behave as if they

believed there was no external world. These ideas were strictly reserved for the sphere of

theoretical thought. 23

It must be stressed that materialism and idealism are two extreme, polarised trends.

Between them there are infinite gradations. In the work of many idealists one finds certain

materialist propositions and, conversely, all pre-Marxist materialists were idealists in the

interpretation of the phenomena of social life. They believed that opinions rule history. One of the

most convinced materialists, Democritus, did not deny the existence of gods and demons, but

believed that they, too, were made out of atoms. In primitive idealism—mythology—even the

gods are composed of matter. They are material and sensuously tangible. The history of

philosophy has recorded many materialists who even believed that the world had been created

by god. These were the so-called deists. There are philosophers who, like Aristotle, wavered

between materialism and idealism to such an extent that it is often hard to decide which trend

they should belong to. Idealism cannot be interpreted as a mere whim of erring philosophers,

brilliant though some of them were. It has its ( epistemological and social roots. The point is that

cognition of the world is a complex and extremely contradictory, by no means straightforward

process, which usually takes a zigzag or circuitous course and moves in spirals. It involves

bursts of imagination, cool common sense, cunning, power of logic, and various plausible and

implausible assumptions. In this riotous flood of creative, investigatory thought, ranging first in

one direction and then in another and sometimes running into blank walls, there is, as the whole

experience of man's intellectual life testifies, an unavoidable risk of mistakes and

misinterpretations. As Lenin aptly and laconically expressed it, only the person who does nothing

makes no mistakes.

Consequently, we have to face the fact that the process of knowing contains the built-in

possibility of thought becoming separated from reality and wandering into the sphere of fantasy,

when purely abstract assumptions are accepted as a kind of reality. Take, for example,

subjective idealism, what is its basic epistemological assumption? Things, their proper ties are

directly given to us in the form of sensations and their subjective images are understood as

existing where their objects are located. Is this true? Yes, it is. For example, the image of a green

leaf relates to the leaf itself and we perceive this "greenness" as belonging to the leaf itself, just

as we perceive the "blueness" of the sky as belonging to our own "firmament". But any

biophysicist will tell us that "greenness" and "blueness" are merely sensations reflecting the

visible spectrum of electromagnetic oscillations of certain frequencies and wavelengths and that

in themselves the waves are "not green" and "not blue". The materialist separates the subjective

form, in which the object is given to us,from its objective source, which exists by itself. The

mistake of subjective idealism lies in the fact that it interprets this subjective form of the

givenness of the object as the object itself, that is to say, reduces things to sensations and

sensations to things.

The objective idealists elevate human thought and its products—concepts, ideas and

culture in general—to the status of the absolute. The historically formed standards of morality,

law, the rules of thinking and language, the whole spiritual life of society tower above the reason

of the individual, as if they were something stable and relatively independent. People experience

the continual influence of this supra-individual existence of spirit and submit to its commands

often 24 with no less obedience than, say, to the laws of gravity. Suffice it to recall the overwhelming impact

of such feelings as shame, conscience, honour, and justice.

In ancient times people measured their actions according to the unwritten rules of their

ancestors that had been retained in the memory and handed down from generation to

generation. The individual consciousness grew accustomed to being dominated by certain supra-

individual ideas, social standards retained in human memory and in the form of the "social

memory", in language. This relative independence of the spiritual life of society was elevated by

imagination into something absolutely independent, into Reason divorced not only from living and

thinking people but also from society, from matter in general, so that thinking and its products

were elevated to a special spiritual realm, the immanent essence of the universe. And this was

objective idealism. Its epistemological roots go down deep into history, when the progress of

cognitive activity and the penetration of reason into the essence of things triggered the process

of formation of abstract concepts. The problem arose of relating the universal and the particular,

the essence and its manifestations. It was not easy for man to understand how the universal

reflected in, for example, the concept of beauty was related to the individual form of its existence

in a given individual. A beautiful person lives and dies but the idea of beauty survives him and

proves to be indestructible. A wise man departs this life but wisdom, as something universal,

common to all wise men who ever lived, live or will live in the future, survives in the system of

culture as something existing above the individual. This universal, reflected in the concepts

(beauty, wisdom, reason, law and so on), came to be identified with the concept itself. The

universal features in things and the concept of the universal became merged in the

consciousness, forming an objective-idealist alloy, in which the universal was divorced from its

individual existence, apart from which it could not exist at all, and acquired the status of an

independent essence. Objective idealism begins when the idea of a thing is conceived not as a

reflection of the thing but as something eternally existing before the thing, embodied in the thing

and determining the thing in its structure, properties and relationships and continuing to exist

after the destruction of the thing. Thus Pythagoras thought of numbers as independent essences

ruling the world, and Plato regarded general concepts as a special realm of pure thought and

beauty that had engendered the world of visible reality. The idea of a thing created by man

precedes the existence of the thing itself. The thing in its given form is derived from the aim, the

intention of its creator, let us say, a carpenter. The greater part of the things that surround us are

the result of man's creative activity, they are something created by man. The idea of creation has

become for man a kind of prism through which he regards the whole world. This idea is so deeply

rooted that he does not find it easy to set it aside and think of the world as something not created

by anybody and existing eternally. The idea of the eternity of existence contradicts all the facts of

our life, in which nearly everything is created, one might say, before our very eyes. So the

eternal, uncreated existence of the world simply did not fit into people's heads and still does not

fit in with many people's thinking. The level of science was very low and this gave rise to the

assumption that there must be some universal creator and lord of all things. This idea was

strengthened also by the fact that so much in the world was strikingly harmonious and

purposeful. 25

Application of the principle of rationality to everything is, in fact, idealism. Reason is

regarded as the spiritual centre of the universe, and its influence as the thing that makes the

world go round. Everything is illuminated by its all-pervasive rays. This is world-guiding reason.

For the objective idealist Hegel, just as for Plato, the whole universe is a living, thinking creature

whose parts bear the invisible traces of the whole.

Such are the epistemological and psychological roots of idealism. Its social roots lie in the

separation of mental from physical labour and the counterposing of the first to the second and

also in the appearance of exploitation. There arose a social elite, which conceived the notion that

ideas, reason should have priority in the life of society while physical labour should be

considered the lot of slaves. These tendencies towards overrating the intellectual principle in life

were extended to the whole universe. Such an approach was reinforced by the class interests of

the ruling elite. Idealist propositions interlock and sometimes even coincide with religion that

urges people to submit.

Idealism is linked with religion and, directly or indirectly, provides its theoretical expression

and substantiation. Over idealism there always hovers the idea of a god. Subjective idealism,

compelled to be inconsistent in defending its principles, allows the objective existence of a god.

The universal reason of the objective idealists is essentially a philosophical pseudonym for god:

the supreme reason conceives itself in its creations. At the same time it would be a vulgarisation

to identify idealism with religion. Philosophical idealism is not a religion but the road to religion

through one of the forms of the complex process of human knowledge. They are different ways

of being aware of the world and forming an attitude to it.

3. Philosophy as Methodology The general concept of methodology. The world presents us with a picture of an infinite

diversity of properties, connections and events. This kaleidoscope of impressions must be

permeated by an organising principle, a certain method, that is to say, by certain regulative

techniques and means of the practical and theoretical mastering of reality. Practical and

theoretical activities follow different methods. The former indicate the ways of doing things and

corresponding human skills that have been historically formed and socially established in the

instruments of labour. The latter characterise the modes of activity of the mind resulting in the

finding truth and the correct, rational solution of problems.

A methodology is a system of principles and general ways of organising and structuring

theoretical and practical activity, and also the theory of this system. Genetically methods go back

far into the past, when our distant ancestors were acquiring, generalising and handing down to

new generations their skills and means of influencing nature, the forms of organising labour and

communication. As philosophy emerged, methodology became a special target of cognition and

could be defined as a system of socially approved rules and standards of intellectual and

practical 26

activity. These rules and standards had to be aligned with the objective logic of events, with the

properties and laws of phenomena. The problems of accumulating and transmitting experience

called for a certain formalisation of the principles and precepts, the techniques and operations

involved in activity itself. For example, in ancient Egypt geometry emerged in the form of

methodologically significant precepts concerning the measuring procedure for the division of

land. An important role in this process was played by training for labour operations, their

sequence, and the choice of the most effective ways of doing things.

With the development of production, technology, art, and the elements of science and

culture, methodology becomes the target of theoretical thought, whose specific form is the

Philosophical comprehension of the principles of organisation and regulation of cognitive activity,

its conditions, structure and content. For example, in the work of Heraclitus "knowledge of many

things" is contrasted to reason, the latter being a Particularly reliable means of understanding the

dialectics of the universe--the universal Logos--and to be distinguished from the diversity of the

"opinions" and legends acquired by unreliable means. The rules of reasoning, of effective proof,

the role of language as a means of cognition were the subject of special inquiry in the philosophy

of the Greek Sophists (Protagoras and others). Socrates, Plato and Aristotle occupy a special

place in discussion of the problems of methodology. Socrates, for example, gave priority to the

dialogical nature of thinking as the joint attainment of truth through collation of different notions

and concepts, their comparison, analysis, definition and so on. He regarded his theory of

Proceeding by means of induction from vague notions to clearly defined general concepts as a

method of Perfecting the art of living, of achieving virtue; logical operations were subordinated to

ethical aims. According to Socrates, the acquisition of true knowledge should serve action with a

moral purpose. The purpose should be determined by means of appropriately organised work of

the intellect. This Socratic principle had a deep influence on various trends in the evolution of

methodology, especially on the teaching of Plato, who developed a dialectic of concepts and

categories the purpose of which was to find the principle in everything. In order to achieve this,

our thoughts should move according to the objective logic of the objects under consideration as

the embodiments of incorporeal essences. The world of these essences, or ideas, was also

regarded as a realm of beauty, of the good which the soul could attain through strenuous effort.

Assuming like Plato that the object of true knowledge was the universal, Aristotle taught

that this universal was to be discovered by investigating individual, empirically given things. The

methodology of such research is set forth in Aristotle's logic, which closely analyses the

principles for defining a term or constructing a statement, the rules of inference and proof, the

role of induction and deduction in attaining truth, and so on. Aristotle's aesthetics expounds the

principles of creativity and analysis in works of art. He also gives us a methodologically important

elaboration of the theory of categories as the organising forms of cognition and their dialectics. 27

of thought? This is something that has a harmful effect on the human personality, dragged in

opposite directions by the two principles. This morbid dichotomy may have negative

consequences for the present and future of both the individual and collective human reason. So

it is an educational, philosophical, moral and profoundly social problem.

Philosophy, as we have said, is not simply an abstract science. It also possesses an

evaluative aspect, its moral principles. Science has given man a lot of things, but ethics or, to put

it more bluntly, conscience, is not one of them. The evaluative, axiological and aesthetic aspects

are also important for science. And they are not part of it either.

Philosophy helps us to achieve a deeper understanding of the social significance and

general prospects of scientific discoveries and their technical applications. The impressive

achievements of the scientific and technological revolution, the contradictions and social

consequences it has evoked, raise profound philosophical problems. Contemporary philosophical

irrationalism gives a pessimistic appraisal of scientific and technological advance and predicts

worldwide disaster. But this raises the question of the responsibility of philosophy, since

philosophy seeks to understand the essence of things and here we are dealing with the activity of

human reason and its "unreasonable" consequences. Thus the question of the nature of

philosophy in our day grows into a question of the historic destinies of humanity and becomes a

vitally important social problem. To what extent can society comprehend itself, rationally control

its own development, be the master of its own destiny, command the consequences of its own

cognitive and practical activity?

There are many questions that the epoch poses before humanity and these questions can

be answered by philosophy. For example, what does the future hold for the contesting social

systems in the modern world? What are the rational ways of removing the threat of universal

annihilation?

In present-day conditions the role not only of natural science and technology, but also of

the humane sciences that study "human affairs", the laws of life and development of society, has

grown enormously and will continue to do so as time goes on. The results of social research

have today assumed not only exceptional theoretical but also exceptional applied, social and

political importance. The very structure of social life is becoming more complex, new forms of

human activity are appearing, the scientific and technological revolution continues its advance,

the role of social and political problems in the life of society, in the development of culture is

steadily increasing.

Revolutionary changes have today invaded all spheres of life: the productive forces,

science with its gigantic field of practical application, technology, politics, ethnic relationships,

intellectual life in general. Man himself is changing. What is the essence, the cause of these

changes that are spreading across the world and affecting the most diverse aspects of human

life? In what way do the various aspects of the revolutionary process that has gripped the planet

interdepend? What 40

consequences will the scientific and technological revolution have for the nations of the world?

Are we not witnessing and participating in a profound crisis of our whole civilisation? What are

we to do about elevated human ideals when we are confronted with a threat to the very existence

of life on earth?For several centuries people hopefully observed the development of technology

on the

assumption that taming the forces of nature would bring them happiness and plenty, and that this

would be enough to allow human life to be arranged on rational principles. Mankind has achieved

a great deal, but we have also made "a great deal of mess". For how long and on what scale can

we go on accumulating the waste products among which modern man has to live? Here we need

a clear and philosophical view of history. Why, because of what contradictions, do the forces

created and activated by human brains and hands turn against man himself and his mind? Why

is the world so constructed that more of its gifted minds are bent on destruction instead of

creation? Is this not a profound social and philosophical problem? The advent of the atomic age

was marked by horrifying annihilation and mass murder. For how long will the menacing shadow

of the atomic bomb hang over all human joys and hopes?

These and other great questions of our time cannot be answered by the supreme science

of physics, by mathematics, cybernetics, chemistry, biology, or by natural science as a whole,

great though their discoveries have been. These questions, which exercise the minds of all

mankind and relate to life today and in the future, must be answered by scientific philosophy.

Naturally, the solution of all the pressing problems of our time depends not only on a

rational philosophical orientation. It also depends on the political orientation of nations and

statesmen, which in turn is related to the nature of the social structure.

Scientific activity is not only logical, it also has moral and socio-political implications.

Knowledge arms man with the means to achieve his ends. There can be no doubt that modern

natural science is a powerful "motor" of technical advance.

In a fierce ideological struggle the specialised scientists who lack any scientific world-view

or methodology sometimes turn out to be helpless grown-up children in the face of reactionary

ideology and some of them fall into its clutches.

5. Philosophy and Art

Philosophy, science and art differ principally according to their subject-matter and also the

means by which they reflect, transform and express it. In a certain sense, art, like philosophy,

reflects reality in its relation to man, and depicts man, his spiritual world, and the relations

between individuals in their interaction with the world. 41

We live not in a primevally pure world, but in a world that is known and has been

transformed, a world where everything has, as it were, been given a "human angle", a world

permeated with our attitudes towards it, our needs, ideas, aims, ideals, joys and sufferings, a

world that is part of the vortex of our existence. If we were to remove this "human factor" from the

world, its sometimes inexpressible, profoundly intimate relationship with man, we should be

confronted by a desert of grey infinity, where everything was indifferent to everything else.

Nature, considered in isolation from man, is for man simply nothing, an empty abstraction

existing in the shadowy world of dehumanised thought. The whole infinite range of our

relationships to the world stems from the sum-total of our interactions with it. We are able to

consider our environment rationally through the gigantic historical prism of science, philosophy

and art, which are capable of expressing life as a tempestuous flood of contradictions that come

into being, develop, are resolved and negated in order to generate new contradictions.

No scientifically, let alone artistically, thinking person can remain deaf to the wise voice of

true philosophy, can fail to study it as a vitally necessary sphere of culture, as the source of

world- view and method. Equally true is the fact that no thinking and emotionally developed

person can remain indifferent to literature, poetry, music, painting, sculpture and architecture.

Obviously, one may be to some extent indifferent to some highly specialised science, but it is

impossible to live an intellectually full life if one rejects philosophy and art. The person who is

indifferent to these spheres deliberately condemns himself to a depressing narrowness of

outlook.

Does not the artistic principle in philosophical thought deserve the attention of, and do

credit to, the thinking mind, and vice versa? In a certain generalised sense the true philosopher is

like the poet. He, too, must possess the aesthetic gift of free associative thinking in integral

images. And in general one cannot achieve true perfection of creative thought in any field without

developing the ability to perceive reality from the aesthetic standpoint. Without this precious

intellectual prism through which people view the world everything that goes beyond the empirical

description of facts, beyond formulae and graphs may look dim and indistinct.

Scientists who lack an aesthetic element in their makeup are dry-as-dust pedants, and

artists who have no knowledge of philosophy and science are not very interesting people either,

for they have little to offer above elementary common sense. The true artist, on the other hand,

constantly refreshes himself with the discoveries of the sciences and philosophy. While

philosophy and science tend to draw us into "the forest of abstractions", art smiles upon

everything, endowing it with its integrating, colourful imagery.

Life is so structured that for a man to be fully conscious of it he needs all these forms of

intellectual activity, which complement each other and build up an integral perception of the world

and versatile orientation in it. 42

The biographies of many scientists and philosophers indicate that the great minds, despite

their total dedication to research, were deeply interested in art and themselves wrote poetry and

novels, painted pictures, played musical instruments and moulded sculpture. How did Einstein

live, for example? He thought, wrote, and also played the violin, from which he was seldom

parted no matter where he went or whom he visited. Norbert Wiener, the founder of cybernetics,

wrote novels, Darwin was deeply interested in Shakespeare, Milton and Shelley. Niels Bohr

venerated Goethe and Shakespeare; Hegel made an exhaustive study of world art and the

science of his day. The formation of Marx's philosophical and scientific views was deeply

influenced by literature. Aeschylus, Shakespeare, Dante, Cervantes, Milton, Goethe, Balzac and

Heine were his favourite authors. He responded sensitively to the appearance of significant

works of art and himself wrote poetry and fairy-tales. The radiance of a broad culture shines forth

from the work of this genius. Lenin was not only acquainted with art but also wrote specialised

articles about it. His philosophical, sociological and economic works are studded with apt literary

references. And what a delight he took in music!

In short, the great men of theory were by no means dry rationalists. They were gifted with

an aesthetic appreciation of the world. And no wonder, for art is a powerful catalyst for such

abilities as power of imagination, keen intuition and the knack of association, abilities needed by

both scientists and philosophers.

If we take the history of Oriental culture, we find that its characteristic feature is the

organic synthesis of an artistic comprehension of the world with its philosophical and scientific

perception. This blending of the philosophical and the artistic is inherent in all peoples, as can be

seen from their sayings, proverbs, aphorisms, tales and legends, which abound in vividly

expressed wisdom.

If we are to develop effective thinking, we must not exclude any specifically human feature

from participation in creative activity. The gift of perception, penetrating observation of reality,

mathematical and physical precision, depth of analysis, a free, forward-looking imagination, a

joyful love of life—these are all necessary to be able to grasp, comprehend and express

phenomena, and this is the only way a true work of art can appear, no matter what its subject

may be.

Can one imagine our culture without the jewels of philosophical thought that were

contributed to it by human genius? Or without its artistic values? Can one conceive of the

development of contemporary culture without the life-giving rays of meditative art embodied in

the works of such people as Dante, Goethe, Leo Tolstoy, Balzac, Pushkin, Lermontov,

Dostoyevsky, Tchaikovsky, and Beethoven? Culture would have had a very different history but

for the brilliant minds that gave us their masterpieces of painting, music, poetry and prose. The

whole world of our thoughts and feelings would have been different, and incomparably poorer.

And we, as individuals, would also have been flawed. The intellectual atmosphere that surrounds

us from childhood, the style of 43

thinking that permeates folk sayings, tales and songs, the books we have read, the paintings and

sculptures we have admired, the music we have heard, the view of the world and humanity that

we have absorbed thanks to our contact with the treasures of art, has not all this contributed to

the formation of our individual self? Did it not teach us to think philosophically and perceive and

transform the world aesthetically?

An indispensable feature of art is its ability to convey information in an evaluative aspect.

Art is a combination of man's cognitive and evaluative attitudes to reality recorded in words,

colours, plastic forms or melodically arranged sounds. Like philosophy, art also has a profoundly

communicative function. Through it people communicate to one another their feelings, their most

intimate and infinitely varied and poignant thoughts. A common feature of art and philosophy is

the wealth they both contain of cognitive, moral and social substance. Science is responsible to

society for a true reflection of the world and no more. Its function is to predict events. On the

basis of scientific discoveries one can build various technical devices, control production and

social processes, cure the sick and educate the ignorant. The main responsibility of art to society

is the formation of a view of the world, a true and large-scale assessment of events, a rational,

reasoning orientation of man in the world around him, a true assessment of his own self. But why

does art have this function? Because in its great productions it is not only consummately artistic

but also profoundly philosophical. How deeply philosophical, for instance, are the verses of

Shake speare, Goethe, Lermontov, Verhaeren! And indeed all the great writers, poets,

composers, sculptors, architects, painters, in short, all the most outstanding and brilliant

exponents of art were imbued with a sense of the exceptional importance of progressive

philosophy and not only kept abreast of but were often responsible for its achievements. How

profound were Tolstoy's artistically expressed meditations on the role of the individual and the

people in the historical process (for example, Napoleon and Kutuzov, or the Russian people in

the war of liberation of 1812, as portrayed inWar and Peace), on freedom and necessity, on the conscious and the unconscious in human behaviour.

Consider the psychological and philosophical depth and the artistic power with which Balzac

revealed the social types in the society of his day in all their diversity (the idea of greed and

acquisitiveness in the character of Gobseck!). How philosophical are the artistic and publicistic

works of Voltaire, Rousseau, Diderot, Thomas Mann, Heine, Herzen, Chernyshevsky and many

others. If we turn to science fiction, we find that it is full of scientific and philosophical reflections,

of varying visions of the future of science, technology and human existence in general. Quite

often its plot is a series of mental experiments. However, neither the scientific nor the

philosophical content, no matter how fully expressed in a work of art, constitutes its specific

element. We never speak of any work of art, no matter how powerful, as a study, whereas

creative work in philosophy is a study, an inquiry, and it is characterised above all not by its

artistic but by its scientific qualities, although its artistic aspect is highly valued and has more

than purely aesthetic significance. The crown of philosophical inquiry is truth and prediction,

whereas in art it is artistic truth, not accuracy of reproduction, in the sense of a copy of what

exists, but a lifelike portrayal of typically possible phenomena in either their developed or

potential form. If art produced only truths similar to 44

artist. When composing his works of art, he is at the same time a philosopher. He achieves the

greatest aesthetic power in those very works(Promet heus andFaust) where the unity of artist

and philosopher is most organic. Can we distinguish clearly between the philosophical and

aesthetic principles inFaust? All that can be said is that no genius could have created such a

work without a synthesis of the philosophical, aesthetic and the scientific.

Without a certain degree of intellect there can be no subtle feelings and from this it follows

that art, which aesthetically expresses man's emotional-intellectual world in his relationship to the

environment, is bound to feel the impact of philosophy and the other sciences. A world-view may

come into art but not as an intrinsic part of it. We can speak of the philosophical content of art,

just as we can speak of the philosophical content of science, when the scientist begins to

consider the essential nature of his science, its moral value, social responsibility, and so on.

These are actually philosophical questions and they do not form part of the specific nature of the

given science. Rather they are the self-awareness of the science, just as the artist's reflections

on the nature of art, its social meaning, and so on, are the self-awareness of art. And this is in

fact philosophy, whose categories permeate all forms of thought, including that of the artist.

Without them no artist could generalise, identify the typical in the particular fact, assess the

quality of his subject-matter, preserve proportion, the most vital element in aesthetic imagination,

or comprehend the contradictions of life in such a way as to give them full expression.

The work of the artist is not spontaneous. It always follows some kind of plan and it is

most effective when talent is guided by a world-view, when the artist has something to tell

people, much more rarely is it effective when it comes about as a result of the accidental

associative play of the imagination, and never is it effective when it is a result of blind instinct.

The keen attention that is given to the problems of method is a sign of progress in both modern

science and art, a sign of the increasing interaction of all aspects of intellectual life—science,

philosophy, and art. 47

Chapter 2. The System of Categories in Philosophical Thought 1. The Categories of Dialectics Dialectics and metaphysics. Dialectics is a theory of the most general connections of the

universe and its cognition and also the method of thinking based on this theory. Anyone who

wants to find a rational orientation in the world and change the world must have a knowledge of

the dialectics of life and thought. Dialectical thinking has its roots far back in the past. The most

striking example was Heraclitus, who saw the world as being in constant flux, intrinsically

contradictory, an eternally living fire blazing up and dying down according to certain laws. The

ideas of dialectics run right through the history of the development of human thought. They were

profoundly expressed in such great thinkers as Kant and Hegel. In Hegel, dialectics embraces

the whole sphere of reality and the life of the mind. Dialectical thought reached its highest peak in

the philosophy of Marxism, in which materialist dialectics is expressed in a system of

philosophical principles, categories and laws.

Dialectics arose and develops historically in a struggle against the metaphysical method,

which is characteristically one-sided and abstract and inclined to absolutise certain elements

within the whole. Metaphysical views have taken various historical forms. While Heraclitus

stressed one aspect of existence—the changeability of things, which the Sophists extended to

complete relativism, the Eleatic philosophers in their criticism of the Heraclitean principle of flux,

concentrated on another aspect, on the stability of existence and went to another extreme in

supposing that everything was changeless. Thus, some philosophers dissolved the world in a

fiery flux while others crystallised it into immovable rock.

In modern times metaphysics has taken the form of an absolutising of the analysis and

classification techniques in the cognition of nature. Because they are constantly repeated in

scientific research, the techniques of analysis, experimental isolation and classification have

gradually imparted to scientific thinking certain general ideas suggesting that in nature's

"workshop" objects exist in isolation, as it were, apart from one another. As philosophy and the

specialised sciences have developed the focus of the struggle between dialectics and

metaphysics has shifted from attempts to explain the connection of things to interpretation of the

principle of development. Here metaphysical thought emerged at first in the form of simple

evolutionism, and then in various concepts of "creative evolution". While the former hypertrophies

quantitative and gradual changes, ignoring qualitative transitions and breaks in gradualness, the

latter absolutise the qualitative, essential changes without perceiving the gradual quantitative

"preparatory" processes leading up to them. So metaphysical thought is inclined to "jump" to

extremes, to exaggerate some 48

aspect of the object: its stability, recurrence, relative independence, and so on. In cognition this

leads to idealism or dogmatism and, in practice, to the justification of stagnation and reaction.

The only antidote to metaphysics and dogmatism, which is metaphysics in another form, is

dialectics, which will not tolerate stagnation and sets no limits to cognition and its scope.

Dissatisfaction with what has been achieved is the element of dialectics, and revolutionary

activity is its essence. Categories. In philosophy, categories are extremely general, fundamental concepts reflecting

the most essential, law-governed connections and relationships of reality. Categories are the

forms and stable organising principles of the thought process and, as such, they reproduce the

properties and relations of existence in global and most concentrated form. Categories are the

result of generalisation, of the intellectual synthesis of the achievements of science and socio-

historical practice and are, therefore, the key points of cognition, the moments when thought

grasps the essence of things. This is the starting-point for the analysis of the diversity (individual

and particular, part and whole, form and content, etc.).

The categories are universal and lasting because they reflect what is most stable in the

universe. Moreover, in the process of history the content, role and status of the categories

change and new categories (system, structure, for example) arise.

In the present age the rapid and overall development of scientific knowledge goes hand in

hand with a process of identification of fundamental concepts which acquire the significance of

categories inasmuch as they perform in relation to specific fields of knowledge a function

comparable to that of philosophical categories, for example, information, self-regulation,

symmetry, and so on, and also constitute the subject-matter of a specific science, that is to say,

they are universal and non-variable in relation to a great number of special concepts of such a

science (for example, the categories of organism or species in biology, the categories of image,

action, motive in psychology, the categories of element in chemistry, of particles and fields in

physics, and of commodities and value in political economy). This prompts us to investigate the

system of scientific categories as something with its own specifics, something that does not

coincide with the system of philosophical categories, although it is closely connected with that

system. By tracing the system of scientific categories we can uncover the logic of development of

any given science, the law- governed transformation of its conceptual build-up. The categories of

philosophy, which constantly accumulate the results of the development of the specialised

sciences, help us to identify and synthesise the elements of world-view and methodology in

scientific thought.

The categories bear a certain relation to one another and constitute a system. They are so

interconnected that each can only be understood as an element of the whole. The initial

categories for the whole system are those of matter and consciousness. They provide the trunk

from which all the various branches of the other categories stem. 49

2. Matter as the Substance of Everything That Exists The general concept of matter. The first thing that strikes the imagination when a person

observes the world around him is the amazing variety of objects, processes, qualities and

relationships. We are surrounded by forests, mountains, rivers, seas. We observe stars and

planets, we admire the beauties of the Aurora Borealis, the flight of comets. There is no end to

the diversity of this world, and to save themselves from drowning in this ocean of diversity people

have from time immemorial sought something uniform.

In observing the phenomena of growth and decay, integration and disintegration, the

ancient thinkers noticed that certain properties and states survived all transformations. They

called this constantly surviving basis of things the primordium. This was the first attempt to

achieve philosophical monism. Some philosophers believed that all things consisted of liquid

matter (water), others thought it was fire, still others, water, fire, earth and air. This natural view

of the origin of the diversity of the world was the starting-point for the scientific explanation of

many phenomena of nature and society. The idea of the atomic structure of matter arose in 500

B.C.

At the end of the 19th century the atomistic conception of the structure of matter surprised

scientists by reaching beyond the boundaries of its mechanistic interpretation. The atom turned

out to be divisible and made up of electrically charged particles. In the atom scientists discovered

a whole world of nuclei, electrons, and electromagnetic fields. This marked a huge step forward

in the study of matter. Physicists concluded that "matter, of which we and all things around us

are made, is not solid and indestructible, but unstable and explosive. Quite literally, we are sitting

on a powder keg. To be sure, this keg has rather strong walls, and we required a few thousand

years to drill a hole in it. But today we have done it, and we may at any moment blow ourselves

sky-high."7

The discovery of the electron was followed by other discoveries, one of the most crucial

being the idea of the electrical nature of matter. The age of electricity had dawned. Maxwell's

theory of electro-magnetism developed the conception of the physical field. While applied science continued its triumphant march, philosophy and natural science sought further clues to the structure of matter.

Taken together, these new discoveries were dialectical in character. The revolution in

natural science called for a radical review of former theories and scientific facts, particularly the

connection between matter, motion, space and time. The scientific picture of the world that

gradually came into focus showed that it was change, transition, transformation and development

that required explanation. But scientific thinking was still in bondage to mechanistic tradition.

Scientists still 7 Max Born, My Life and My Views. Introduced by I. Bernard Cohen Charles Scribners' Sons, N.Y., 1968, p. 67. 50

tended to think that the particles of the atom, if only their motion could be observed in detail,

must obey the same laws of mechanics as the planets, whose position could be predicted for

thousands of years ahead. But as research into the structure of the atom advanced, it became

increasing ly clear that the behaviour of electrons did not obey the classical laws of mechanics.

The new forms of reality were described in mathematical formulae. The age of mechanical

models was over. However, thinking possesses a certain inertia: new facts were squeezed into

the framework of old concepts. For two centuries Newton's classical mechanics had been

considered a perfect picture of the universe. Its limitations, however, were revealed by Einstein's

relativity theory and this launched an agonising process of breaking up the old, habitual notions.

A good many eminent physicists who had only a mechanistic view of the world, which they

identified with materialism in general, were influenced to some degree by idealism. Some

physicists and philosophers believed that only sensuously palpable phenomena, things that

could be seen, touched, and smelled were material. But microphenomena are beyond the range

of direct perception. In this strange world matter appeared in a new light, without colour, smell,

solidity, without any of the properties with which people had come to associate the concept of the

material. On the basis of the new data of science, new concepts were evolved that contradicted

the "obvious" but corresponded to the latest experimental results and scientific thinking. On the

other hand, the impossibility of perceiving microphenomena directly suggested that these

phenomena were non-material. Matter came to be regarded either as an aggregate of electrons

or as a form of energy, or even as any stable set of sensations. Some scientists and

philosophers found it difficult to understand that out there in the infinite depths of this world that

was diminishing into invisibility there could be any vehicle or measure of materiality.

In the old days, mass had been considered the measure of the quantity of matter. The

discovery of the inconstancy of mass, its variability depending on the velocity of bodies, was

taken to mean that matter had disappeared and materialism was bankrupt. Forgetting the earthy

roots of all mathematical constructions, some scientists began to claim that these constructions

were the result of pure thought. "Matter has disappeared and there is nothing left but equations,"

they declared. Lenin described the situation in physics as a methodological crisis and called the scientists who had taken up the positions of idealism "physical" idealists.

Philosophers and natural scientists in some countries today tend to identify the concept of

matter with that of substance. In this way, while appearing to criticise vulgar materialism, they

actually criticise dialectical materialism. Some of them believe, for example, that atoms may be

deprived of the status of physical reality on the grounds that no one has ever seen an atom and

what cannot be perceived does not exist. 51

and heredity. There is none of this in non-organic nature. In the living organism even the purely

physical and chemical processes are subordinated to certain biological tasks. We cannot explain

by purely physical or chemical laws why the ape can sacrifice its life to save its young, or why a

bird will sit for weeks to hatch out its eggs.

While stressing the need to take into consideration the specifics of each structural level of

matter, we must at the same time remember certain general laws inherent in all levels and also

the connection and interaction between the various levels. This connection shows itself mainly in

the fact that simple forms of organisation always go hand in hand with complex forms. The higher

level includes the lower as one of its genetic preconditions and at the same time as one of its

own elements. The physics of elementary particles has not only "conquered" chemistry. It has

begun to tackle living substance—biology. Humanity today stands on the threshold of completely

new, extraordinary discoveries which will hand us the master microkeys to processes occurring

in animate matter, including man. Biologists have proved that heredity is conditioned by the

nucleus of the cell, the chromosomes, which transmit hereditary characteristics. It turns out that

the answer to one of the most intimate questions of biology depends to a great extent on

chemistry, and that life is the chemistry not only of protein bodies but also of chemical

components, particularly the nucleic acids.

Scientific development has shown that progress in physiology and biology depends to a

large extent on progress in the physics and chemistry of organisms, including the physico-

chemical investigation of nervous activity.

If we try to reduce the more complex forms of motion to the simple forms we may

backtrack into mechanism. Ignoring the unity and connection of the various forms of the motion

of matter may lead to attempts to regard motion in isolation from its vehicle, for example, heredity

without its material substratum. It is precisely on the molecular level that our ideas of the subtle

mechanisms of heredity have materialised.

However, the higher forms of organisation are not included in the lower forms. Life is a

form of organisation inherent in protein bodies. There is no life in non-organic bodies. The

chemical form of organisation is inherent in chemical elements and their compounds, but it does

not exist in such material objects as photons, electrons, and other similar particles.

Since the complex forms of the organisation of matter include the lower forms as

subordinate elements, we must take this into consideration and in studying animals and plants,

for example, apply not only the leading biological methods but also physico-chemical methods in

a secondary capacity. 57

At the same time the study of biological phenomena enriches chemistry and physics.

Knowledge of the lower levels as components of the higher levels helps us to get a deeper

insight into the highest level of organisation of matter. Thus, chemistry in studying structures at

the molecular level has achieved considerable successes thanks to the appearance of quantum

mechanics, which has revealed certain peculiarities in the structure of the atomic level. This is

understandable because chemical reactions at the molecular level are connected with intra-

atomic processes. The uncreatability and indestructibility of matter. One of the attributes of matter is its

indestructibility, which is displayed in a set of specific laws of the conservation of matter in the

process of its transformation. In studying the foundation of matter modern physics has

demonstrated the universal transformability of elementary particles. In the continuous process of

interchangeability matter is conserved as substance, that is to say, as the base of all change.

The cessation of mechanical motion owing to friction leads to an accumulation of internal energy

in the body in question and intensification of the heat motion of its molecules. Heat motion in its

turn may become chemical or electromagnetic motion. In the microcosm the particles of matter

are transformed into radiation. The law of the conservation and transformation of energy states

that no matter what processes of transformation occur in the world, the general quantity of mass

and energy remains unchanged. Any material object can exist only in connection with others and

through them it is connected with the rest of the world. The destruction of a concrete thing means

only that it has turned into something else. The birth of a concrete thing means that it has arisen

from something else. For nature the "destruction of the particular" is the performance of the same

necessity in the global play of life forces as its emergence. The world as a whole continues to

exist only thanks to the continuous and partial destruction of itself. That matter is conserved

becomes apparent only in the process of mutation of its forms.

The principle of the indestructibility and uncreatability of matter is of great importance in

forming a world-view and a methodology. Guided by this principle science has discovered the

laws of the conservation of mass, energy, charge, parity and other fundamental laws that have

enabled us to reach a deeper and fuller understanding of the processes at work in various fields

of nature. The crucial laws of scientific cognition also aim us against idealist views, such as

creationism. Some scientists maintain, for instance, that atoms are from time to time "created"

out of nothing, that is to say, at a certain moment certain atoms comprising matter allegedly do

not exist but the next moment they exist, having appeared out of nothing.

The indestructibility of matter cannot be understood only in terms of quantity. The laws of

conservation also presuppose qualitative indestructibility. Ignoring this aspect of the laws of

conservation inevitably leads to mistakes, an example of which is the idea of the heat death of

the universe. This theory alleges that all forms of motion must turn into heat, which will ultimately

disperse in universal space. The temperature of all bodies will be equalised and all motion will 58

cease. There will be neither light nor heat. Everything will die. And this will be the end of the

world! According to this conception the universe lives its life and follows the path from birth to

death like all the rest of us; science knows no other change except the transition to senility, and

no other process but motion towards final oblivion. We see the stars constantly turning into

radiation just as eternally and unceasingly as mountains of ice melt in a warm ocean. Today's

sun weighs many billions of tons less than the sun of a month ago. Since other stars are melting

in the same way, the universe as a whole is now less substantial. Not only the quantity of matter

in the universe is diminishing, but even what is left is constantly escaping into the icy cold of

outer space at colossal and ominously increasing speeds. The universe seems to be running

away from us and dissolving like a vision into oblivion.

Research has shown, however, that heat death is impossible. The ceaseless process of

conversion of all forms of motion into heat is accompanied by an equally unceasing process of

the conversion of heat into other forms of motion. The stars are not only cooling; other stars are

being born and growing brighter. There is nowhere for matter to appear from and nowhere for it

to go. It is the source, the cause, and the consequence of itself. It owes nothing to anything or

anyone for its existence.

3. The Motion of Matter Motion and its forms. The world is in constant motion. It has no "days-off". It never gets tired.

The billions of stars that we admire on a clear night and that seem motionless to the naked eye

are moving at colossal speeds. Every star is a sun with its own ring of planets. The stars and the

satellites circling round them also revolve on their own axis and participate in the turning of the

whole galaxy around its axis. Moreover, various parts of the galaxy have different cycles. Our

galaxy moves in relation to other galaxies. And there is no end to these whimsical courses of the

universal round about.

At a certain stage in their evolution some stars explode and flare up like huge cosmic

fireworks. Our Sun is a blazing fiery hurricane. Its whole surface is in a state of bubbling, erupting

agitation. Colossal fiery waves pass over the turbulent solar surface. Huge fountains of flame—

the protuberances — spurt to heights of hundreds of thousands of kilometres. The gigantic

streams of internal heat that come to the surface are poured forth into space in the form of

radiation. Many thinkers have perceptively noted the astonish ing activity of matter, its

tremendous internal energy. As Francis Bacon, for example, put it, "matter, surrounded by a

sensuous, poetic glamour, seems to attract man's whole entity by winning smiles".10 In view of

this indefatigable activity of matter it would hardly be possible to create an unbridgeable gap

between its living and inorganic forms. Apparently they have more in common than is visible to

the eye. 10 See K. Marx and F. Engels, "The Holy Family", Collected Works, Vol. 4, Progress Publishers, Moscow, 1975, p. 128. 59

Motion is the mode of existence of matter. To be means to be in motion. The world is

integrating and disintegrating. It never attains ultimate perfection. Like matter, motion is

uncreatable and indestructible. It is not introduced from outside but is included in matter, which is

not inert but active. Motion is self-motion in the sense that the tendency, the impulse to change of

state is inherent in matter itself: it is its own cause.

The forms and kinds of motion are manifold. They are connected with the levels of the

structural organisation of matter. The basic forms are motion of elementary particles, appearance

and interaction of atoms and molecules, the chaotic displacement of particles in the form of heat

motion, the mechanical motion of macroscopic bodies, the biological motion with all its diverse

manifestations, the life of human society and, finally, a quite conceivable metasocial form of

motion in the shape of extremely intricate connections between various civilisations on a cosmic

scale. Every form of motion has its "vehicle"—substratum. Thus elementary particles are the

material vehicles of the diverse processes of intermutations. The elements of the atomic nucleus

are the material vehicles of the nuclear form of motion, the elements of the atom, of intra-atomic

form of motion, the elements of molecules and molecular compounds, of the chemical form of

motion, and so on up to the social form of motion, which is the highest of all known forms.

The motion of any thing occurs only in relation to that of another. The motion of a separate

body is an absurdity. Essentially motion is nothing but the interaction of things as a result of

which they change. "Is it permissible to consider the motion of only one body in the entire

universe? By the motion of a body we always mean its change of position in relation to a second

body. It is, therefore, contrary to common sense to speak about the motion of only one body."11

In order to study the motion of any object one must find another object in relation to which one

can consider the motion that interests us. This other object is known as the system of reference.

Motion is intrinsically contradictory. It is a unity of change and stability, of disturbance and

rest. Thus any change in structural elements, properties or relations takes place along side the

conservation of certain other elements and every conservation takes place only through motion.

In general, in the endless flux of ceaseless motion there are always moments of stability,

expressed above all in conservation of the state of motion, and also in the form of equilibrium of

phenomena and relative rest. No matter how much an object changes, it retains its own particular

character for as long as it exists. A river does not cease to be a river because it flows. Flow is, in

fact, the very thing that makes a river what it is. Possessing absolute rest means ceasing to exist.

Everything in a state of relative rest is inevitably involved in some kind of motion and ultimately in

the infinite forms of its manifestation in the universe. Rest always has only an apparent and

relative character. Bodies may rest only in relation to a given system of reference, conventionally

regarded as

11 Albert Einstein and Leopold Infeld, The Evolution of Physics. The Growth of Ideas from Early Concepts to Relativity

and Quanta, Simon and Schuster, N.Y., 1942, p. 222 60

motionless. For example, we are motionless in relation to a given building and it is motionless in

relation to the Earth. But we are continuously moving with the Earth and the Earth, together with

its environing air ocean, is revolving on its own axis and around the Sun. The unity of matter and motion. Motion was not always regarded as an inseparable attribute of

matter. In the history of philosophy and natural science there existed two opposite points of view:

one of them, energism, absolutised energy, the other, mechanism, regarded matter as a passive

principle with no intrinsic activity. In order to set it in motion there had to be a "divine first push".

In various sciences this doctrine took the form of notions of hidden forces, "minor ghosts" (the life

force, spirit, etc.). This was a search for non-mechanical causes of various phenomena. The

idealists maintained and still maintain that spirit is the active, creative principle, while matter is

inert.

The absolutising of energy was expressed in the conception of energism. The German

scientist Wilhelm Ostwald believed that there was nothing in the world but energy. What did any

person feel when he was struck with a stick—the stick or the energy? Only energy, said Ostwald.

And wherever people were accustomed to feeling and seeing matter, according to Ostwald, they

were feeling and seeing only "pure energy". The discovery of the law of the conservation and

transformation of energy and the successes of thermodynamics as applied to numerous natural

phenomena encouraged thinkers to turn "pure" energy into an absolute, the ultimate content of

everything that exists. But pure energy is an abstraction. Energy is one of the characteristics of

the intensity of the interaction of material objects; energy is motion, which is impossible without a

material vehicle, just as thought is impossible without a thinking brain or blueness without

something that is blue.

In the process of scientific research one often has to single out the energic aspect of

processes and disregard their vehicles. This is a justifiable abstraction. While the real structure of

elementary particles, for example, is unknown one has to confine oneself to an energic

description of interconversion processes. But this absolutisation leads to energy, as a quantity

surviving in all these processes, being sometimes interpreted as indestructible, as a stable

substance from which elementary particles, as it were, are "made". Sometimes photons are

identified with "pure energy". The discovery of light pressure showed that photons (light) are

infinitely small accumulations of matter possessing not only energy but also mass. The law

connecting the mass and energy of material objects is sometimes interpreted in the spirit of

energism. Erroneously identifying mass with matter, the energists assume that matter may turn

into a concentration of pure energy. It is well known, however, that mass is not matter, but only

one of its properties. And the meaning of Einstein's energy equationE=mc2 is that as mass

increases, so, too, does energy, a material object possesses a certain mass and a corresponding

amount of energy. Matter cannot change into any of its properties: it is the vehicle of all their

infinite diversity. Mass is the measure of such properties of matter as inertia and gravitation,

while energy is the measure of its motion. So the mass-energylaw reflects and proves the inseparability of the properties of matter and motion. Motion has both a spatial and temporal character.

4. Space and Time The concept of space and time. All material bodies have a certain extension: length, breadth,

height. They are variously placed in relation to each other and constitute parts of one or another

system. Space is a form of coordination of coexisting objects and states of matter. It consists in

the fact that objects are extraposed to one another (alongside, beside, beneath, above, within,

behind, in front, etc.) and have certain quantitative relationships. The order of coexistence of

these objects and their states forms the structure of space.

Material phenomena are characterised by their duration, the sequence of the stages of

their motion, their development. Processes may take place either simultaneously, or precede or

succeed one another. Such, for example, is the interrelation between day and night. The

dimension of time can be measured only with the help of certain standards (in seconds. minutes,

hours, days, years, centuries, etc.), that is to say, motions that are accepted as being even. The

perception of time also allows us to assess the sequence and duration of events. Depending on

our subjective sensations such as merriment or grief, pleasure or boredom, time seems either

short or long. Time is a form of coordination of objects and states of matter in their succession. It

consists in the fact that every state is a consecutive link in a process and has certain quantitative

relations with other states. The order of succession of these objects and states forms the

structure of time.

Space and time are universal forms of the existence of matter, the coordination of objects.

The universality of these forms lies in the fact that they are forms of existence of all the objects

and processes that have ever existed or will exist in the infinite universe. Not only the events of

the external world, but also all feelings and thoughts take place in space and time. In the material

world everything has extension and duration. Space and time have their peculiarities. Space has

three dimensions: length, breadth and height, but time has only one—from the past through the

present to the future. It is inevitable, unrepeatable and irreversible.

Correct understanding of the essence of space and time is closely connected with the

scientific picture of the world. Everything is differentiated, broken down into relatively stable

extraposed material formations. The processes that occur in them and condition their

conservation (reproduction) and at the same time their transformation, are also differentiated:

they constitute the consecutive change of the states of an object. Space and time exist objectively. Although we may feel how time in its inexorable passage is carrying us away, we can neither halt nor prolong it. We cannot recover a single moment of 62 existence. The flow of time is beyond our control. We are as helpless in it as a chip of wood in a river.

Dialectics proceeds from acknowledgement of the unity of motion, space, time and matter,

which is expressed in the principle that various forms of the structural organisation of matter and

the levels of this organisation are characterised by their specific motion, space and time. Thus

the spatial organisation of a crystal differs from that of a blossoming rose. The time of historical

events occurs, is experienced by their participants and is preserved in the memory of mankind

and this kind of time differs from the purely physical time of, say, the motion of the celestial

bodies. However, metaphysical thought separates matter from motion, and both of them, from

space and time. Newton, for example, assumed that space was the empty container of things,

that it was incorporeal, absolutely penetrable, never influenced anything and was never affected

by any influence.

Universal space was considered to be filled with absolutely motionless ether, and moving

bodies were thought to encounter an "ethereal wind" like the wind that resists a running person.

Space was allegedly immutable and motionless, its attributes did not depend on anything, even

time; nor did they depend on material bodies or their motion. One could remove all bodies from

space and space would still exist and retain its attributes. Newton held the same views about

time. He believed that time flowed by in the same way throughout the universe and this flow did

not depend on anything; time was therefore absolute. Like a river, it flowed on of its own accord,

heedless of the existence of material processes.

The idea of absolute space and time corresponded to the physical picture of the world,

namely the system of views of matter as a set of atoms separated from each other, possessing

immutable volume and inertia (mass), and influencing each other instantaneously either at a

distance or through contact. Revision of the physical picture of the world changed the view of

space and time. The discovery of the electromagnetic field and the realisation that field could not

be reduced to a state of mechanical environment revealed the flaws in the classical picture of the

world. It turned out that matter could not be represented as a set of separate, strictly dissociated

elements. The particles of matter are indeed connected with one another in integral systems by

fields whose action is transmitted at a finite speed that is equal for any closed system (the speed

of light in a vacuum).

It was held previously that if all matter disappeared from the universe, space and time

would remain. The theory of relativity, however, maintains that with the disappearance of matter

space and time would also disappear.

To sum up, everything in the world is spatial and temporal. Space and time are absolute.

But since these are forms of matter in motion, they are not indifferent to their content. When it

moves, an object does not leave an empty form behind it, space is not an apartment that can be

let out to 63

such a tenant as matter, and time cannot be compared to some monster that gnaws at things

and leaves its tooth marks on them. Space and time are conditioned by matter, as a form is

conditioned by its content, and every level of the motion of matter possesses its space-time

structure. Thus living cells and organisms, in which geometry becomes more complex and the

rhythm of time changes, possess special space-time properties. This is biological time. There is

also historical time, whose unit may be the replacement of one generation by another, which

corresponds to a century. Depending on our practical needs, historical time is counted in

centuries and millennia. The reference point may be certain cultural-historical events or even

legends. The finite and the infinite. Whose imagination has not been stirred by a mysterious sense of

the vastness of the universe? What man has looked up at the dark sky glittering with its myriads

of stars and not been awed by the glamour of outer space? Whose heart has not been moved by

the majestic splendour of the nocturnal heavens?

In our everyday lives, our dealings with everything around us, we encounter finite objects,

processes. The finite means something that has an end, that is limited in space. In everyday

practice we may mean by infinity anything very big or very small, depending on the

circumstances. For example, one billion raised to the power of one hundred is in practice an

infinite quantity. Our experience is too limited for us to be able to define infinity. Scientists like to

joke that they begin to understand infinity only when they think of human folly. One may throw a

spear from a certain point in space and from the place where it lands one may repeat the throw.

And one may go on doing this again and again, never reaching any boundary. No matter how

distant a star may be from us we may still go further than that star. The universe is never

"boarded up". Infinity cannot be traversed to its end. Such infinity would be a "false" infinity. True

infinity means constant going beyond the limits of the finite. The universe is not given in any cut-

and-dried form, it is constantly reproducing itself; it is a reality that is constantly recreated. The

infinite manifests itself in the finite and through the finite. Through the finite we come to an

understanding, a knowledge of the infinite. The finite is a constantly appearing and disappearing

moment of an infinite process of change. Change in general is associated with an object's going

beyond its spatial, temporal, quantitative and qualitative limits. The very fact of the interaction of

things is constant going beyond the limits of finite, individual existence. In this constant "going

beyond oneself" into outer being, lies the infinite nature of the finite. An object has innumerable

relations with other objects. Thereby it acquires an infinite number of properties. And in this

sense infinity implies qualitative diversity, realised in space and time.

We have advanced from the scale of the Earth to the expanses of outer space, to time

that has no beginning and no end. This is extensive infinity. We ourselves appear to be standing

midway between the infinite expanses of the universe with its worlds that are known or unknown

to us and the equally infinite depths of the world of the smallest particles of matter, which is

intensive infinity. We are the junction, as it were, of roads that lead away into the infinitely large

and the 64 infinitely small. We are mere specks of dust in comparison with the stars and at the same time we are giants compared to the tiny microorganisms that swarm in every drop of water.

Thought has penetrated from regions describable only in terms of millions of light years to

regions that may be measured in trillionths of a centimetre! And there, too, we find the properties

of the finite and the infinite. Thus, many physicists assume the existence of a certain basic length

—the spatial quantum. It would, they say, be as pointless to consider any smaller length as it

would be to consider, for example, a quantity of gold less than one atom, because such a

quantity would not even constitute the given chemical element. So scientists assume the

existence of "atoms" of space. From this follows the recognition of minimal time, beyond whose

limits the concept of phase, that is to say, changes of state in time, loses all meaning.

At attempt to refute the theory of the infinity of the universe is to be found in the concept of

the "expanding" universe. James Jeans, for example, assumed that not only was the quantity of

matter in the universe diminishing, but also that any matter that remained was constantly

receding into space at colossal and ominously increasing speed. And yet there are no valid

grounds for such conclusions. The metagalaxy in which we observe this centrifugal movement of

the galaxies, despite its enormous size as it appears to us, is only a tiny particle in the infinite

universe, so it cannot be assumed that the whole universe is "expanding".

To sum up, all objects and processes in the world are finite. But the totality of finite things

and processes is infinite. The universe had no beginning, has no end and is inexhaustible.

Beyond the most distant stellar systems that modern science and technology have permitted us

to observe there are still other gigantic celestial bodies. And so on ad infinitum. There are no

limits beyond which there might be something that cannot be embraced by the concept of

objective reality and there is nothing above it or outside it. Objective reality is in everything. It is

everything. The concept of limit has meaning only when applied to the finite. Neither our

distance-bound imagination nor the spacemen of the future can ever encounter some

supernatural obstacle such as non-existence. They will never run into something that differs from

matter. No matter how much time passes prior to some event, time will go on after it. No matter

how long ago a certain event took place, it was preceded by countless other events. The chain of

events has never been broken. Its links are numberless. In the universe as a whole there is no

initial or culminating point; the universe is equally open at both ends. If time were finite, the world

must have had a beginning. To acknowledge the beginning of the world's existence in time would

be to acknowledge creation and, consequently, a creator.

The concept of beginning is meaningful when applied not to the universe as a whole but

only to separate, specific things and processes, that is to say, to the finite. We can set no limits to

the universe as a whole. It categorically forbids us to do so. It is ageless. It is infinitely old and

eternally 65 young. Someone once wittily remarked that he could not imagine the universe having lived its life and sadly vegetating for the rest of eternity.

5. The Principle of Universal Connection and Development The concept of universal connection. Nothing in the world stands by itself. Every object is a

link in an endless chain and is thus connected with all the other links. And this chain of the

universe has never been broken; it unites all objects and processes in a single whole and thus

has a universal character. We cannot move so much as our little finger without "disturbing" the

whole universe. The life of the universe, its history lies in an infinite web of connections.

Whereas the interconnection of things is absolute, their independence is relative. In the

sphere of non-organic nature there exist mechanical, physical and chemical connections, which

presuppose interaction either through various fields or by means of direct contact. In a crystal,

which is an ensemble of atoms, no individual atom can move in complete independence of the

others. Its slightest shift has an effect on every other atom. The oscillations of particles in a solid

body are, and can only be, collective. In living nature there exist more complex connections —

the biological, which are expressed in various relations between and within species and also in

their relations with the environment. In the life of society connections become more complex and we have production, class, family, personal, national, state, international and other relationships.

Connections exist not only between objects within the framework of a given form of motion

of matter, but also between all its forms, woven together in a kind of infinitely huge skein. Our

consciousness can contain no idea that does not express either imagined or real connections,

and in its turn this idea must of necessity be a link in a chain of other ideas and conceptions.

What is a connection? it is a dependence of one phenome non on another in a certain

relationship. The basic forms of connection may be classified as spatial, temporal, causal and

consequential, necessary and accidental, law-governed, im mediate and mediate, internal and

external, dynamic and static, direct and feedback, and so on. Connection does not exist by itself,

without that which is connected. Moreover, any connection has its basis, which makes such

connection possible. For example, the gravitational properties of material systems condition the

force connection of cosmic objects; atomic nuclear charge is a connection in the periodic system

of the elements; material production and the community of interests serve as the basis for the

connections between human beings in society. The materiality of the world conditions the

connection of everything with everything else, expressed in the philosophical principle of

universal connection. In order to realise this or that connection there must be certain conditions.

They differ for various systems. 66

Investigation of the various forms of connections is the primary task of cognition.

Connection is the first thing that strikes us when we consider anything. We, of course, do not

always think about such things. And this is natural enough, for one cannot think only in terms of

universal connections when deciding simple everyday or even specific scientific problems.

However, on the philosophical level, when one tries to consider universal problems, one cannot

adopt the position of never looking further than one's nose. This brings us to the methodological

conclusion that in order to know an object in reality, one must embrace, study all its aspects, all

the immediate and mediate connections. This is what drives scientific thought in its search for

systematic connections everywhere, both in particulars and in the whole. If we deny the principle

of universal connection, and particularly the essential connections, this has a disastrous effect

not only on our theory but also on our practice. For example, forest-cutting reduces the bird

population and this, in its turn, increases the number of agricultural pests. Destruction of forests

sands up rivers, erodes the soil and thus leads to a reduction in harvests. There are no birds or

animals in nature that are absolutely harmful. The wolf, for example, because it eats other

animals, including the weak and the sick, acts as a regulator of their numbers. Paradoxically, the

mass extermination of wolves, far from protecting other species, actually reduces their numbers,

due to the spread of disease.

So everything in the world is connected with something else. And this universal

interconnection, and also the connection of the elements within the whole at any level, form an

essential condition for the dynamic balance of systems. Interaction. The human individual, for example, is not a lone traveller amid the jungles of

existence. He is a part of the world interacting in various ways with that world. Separate cultures

are not closed, isolated islands. They are like great waves in the ocean of history, which work

upon each other, often merging into even broader waves, often clashing with waves of a different

dimension, so that the regular rhythm of the rise and fall of individual waves is broken. Like any

other system, an organism or a society lives and functions as long as there is a certain

interaction of the elements in these systems or of the systems themselves with other systems.

Everything that happens in the world may be attributed to the interaction of things, one element

of which is equilibrium.

Interaction is a process by which various objects influence each other, their mutual

conditioning or transmutation and also their generation of one another. Interaction is a kind of

immediate or mediate, external or internal relationship or connection. The properties of an object

may manifest themselves and be cognised only through its interconnection with other objects. The category of interaction is extremely versatile and may be used in various senses. In some cases interaction is understood as the general basis or condition for the develop ment of events; in 67 specific whole, its function, or its "behaviour", that is to say, the means by which it interacts with other objects and, finally, all these characteristics taken as a whole.

Development is irreversible. Nothing passes through one and the same state more than

once. Development is a dual process: the old is destroyed and replaced by something new,

which establishes itself in life not simply by freely evolving its own potential but in conflict with the

old.

The crucial feature of development is time. Development takes place in time and only time

reveals its direction. Even the history of the concept of development goes back to the formation

of the theoretical notions of the direction of time. The ancient cultures had no knowledge of

development in the true sense. They saw time as moving in cycles and all events were thought to

be predestined. The old way of thinking was that the sun must rise and set and hasten to its

destined resting place, the wind would blow where it listeth and return in its courses, what was

bound to happen would happen, and what was done would always be done, and there was

nothing new under the sun.

The idea of a universe, perfect and complete, on which the whole ancient view of the

world rested, precluded any question of oriented change that might give rise to new systems and

connections. Any such change was understood as the evolution of certain possibilities that had

been inherent in things from the beginning and had simply been hidden from view. With the rise

of Christianity, the notions of time and its linear direction begin to be applied to the intellectual

sphere, and, as experimental science takes shape, these notions gradually begin to blaze a trail

in the study of nature, giving birth to the ideas of natural history, of oriented and irreversible

changes in nature and society. The turning-point here was the creation of cosmology and the

theory of evolution in biology and geology. The idea of development then became firmly

established in natural science and has since become an object of philosophical investigation.

This orientation of the sciences on the idea of development substantially enriched it with a

world-view and methodological principles and played an essential heuristic role. For instance,

biology and the history of culture showed that the process of development was neither universal

nor homogeneous. If we consider development on a major scale, such as organic evolution, it is

quite obvious that certain interactions of processes taking different directions are at work within it.

The general line of progressive development is interwoven with changes that give rise to blind

alleys of evolution or even paths of regress. Alongside processes of ascending develop ment we

find degradation and decay of systems, descents from the higher to the lower, from the more

perfect to the less perfect, and a lowering in the level of organisation of systems. An example of

degradation is to be found in biological species that die out because of their failure to adapt to

new conditions. Degradation of a system as a whole does not mean that all its elements are beginning to disintegrate. Regress is a contradictory process: the whole falls apart but certain elements in it may 69

progress. What is more, a system as a whole may progress while certain of its elements fall into

decay. Thus, the progressive development of biological forms as a whole goes hand in hand with

the degradation of certain species.

Cyclical processes such as the transmutation of elementary particles play a significant role

in the universe. The branch of progressive development known to science consists of the pre-

stellar, the stellar, the planetary, the biological, the social and hypothetical metasocial stages of

the structural organisation of matter. On the cosmic scale the processes of progressive and

regressive development would appear to be of equal significance.

6. The Principle of Causality The concept of causality, determinism. All certainty in our relationships with the world rests

on acknowledgement of causality. Causality is a genetic connection of phenomena through

which one thing (the cause) under certain conditions gives rise to, causes something else (the

effect). The essence of causality is the generation and determination of one phenomenon by

another. In this respect causality differs from various other kinds of connection, for example, the

simple temporal sequence of phenomena, of the regularities of accompanying processes. For

example, a pinprick causes pain. Brain damage causes mental illness. Causality is an active

relationship, a relationship which brings to life some thing new, which turns possibility into

actuality. A cause is an active and primary thing in relation to the effect. But "after this" does not

always mean "because of this". It would be a parody of justice if we were to say that where there

is punishment there must have been a crime.

Causality is universal. Nowhere in the world can there be any phenomena that do not give

rise to certain consequences and have not been caused by other phenomena. Ours is a world of

cause and effect or, figuratively speaking, of progenitors and their progeny. Whenever we seek

to retrace the steps of cause and effect and find the first cause, it disappears into the infinite

distances of universal interaction. But the concept of cause is not confined to interaction.

Causality is only a part of universal connection. The universality of causality is often denied on

the grounds of the limited nature of human experience, which prevents us from judging the

character of connections beyond what is known to science and practice. And yet we know that no

scientist restricts his reasoning to what he can immediately perceive. The whole history of

humanity, of all scientific experiment knows no exception to the principle of determinism.

The connection between cause and effect takes place in time. This temporary relation

may be defined in various ways. Some people believe that cause always precedes effect, that

there is a certain interval between the time when the cause begins to act (for example, the

interaction of two systems) and the time the effect appears. For a certain time cause and effect

coexist, then the cause dies out and the consequence ultimately becomes the cause of

something else. And so on to infinity. 70

Other thinkers believe that these intervals partially overlap. It is also maintained that cause

and effect are always strictly simultaneous. Still others maintain that it is pointless to speak of a

cause already existing and therefore taking effect while the effect has not yet entered the sphere

of existence. How can there be a "non-effective cause"?

The concepts of "cause" and "effect" are used both for defining simultaneous events,

events that are contiguous in time, and events whose effect is born with the cause. In addition,

cause and effect are sometimes qualified as phenomena divided by a time interval and

connected by means of several intermediate links. For example, a solar flare causes magnetic

storms on Earth and a consequent temporary interruption of radio communication. The mediate

connection between cause and effect may be expressed in the formula: if A is the cause of B and

B is the cause of C, then A may also be regarded as the cause of C. Though it may change, the

cause of a phenomenon survives in its result. An effect may have several causes, some of which

are necessary and others accidental.

An important feature of causality is the continuity of the cause-effect connection. The

chain of causal connections has neither beginning nor end. It is never broken, it extends eternally

from one link to another. And no one can say where this chain began or where it ends. It is as

infinite as the universe itself. There can be neither any first (that is to say, causeless) cause nor

any final (i.e., inconsequential) effect. If we were to admit the existence of a first cause we should

break the law of the conservation of matter and motion. And any attempt to find an "absolutely

first" or "absolutely final" cause is a futile occupation, which psychologically assumes a belief in

miracles. The internal mechanism of causality is associated with the transference of matter, motion and information.

Effect spreads its "tentacles" not only forwards (as a new cause giving rise to a new

effect) but also backwards, to the cause which gave rise to it, thus modifying, exhausting or

intensifying its force. This interaction of cause and effect is known as the principle of feedback. It

operates everywhere, particularly in all self-organising systems where perception, storing,

processing and use of information take place, as for example, in the organism, in a cybernetic

device, and in society. The stability, control and progress of a system are inconceivable without

feedback. Any effect is evoked by the interaction of at least two phenomena. Therefore theinteraction phenomenon is the true cause of the effect phenomenon. In other words, the effect phenomenon is

determined by the nature and state of both interacting elements. A word conveying tragically bad

news may cause a condition of stress in a sensitive person, whereas it will bounce off an

insensitive or phlegmatic individual like "water off a duck's back", leaving only a slight emotional

trace. The cause of stress in this case was not the word itself but its information-bearing impact

on vulnerable personality. 71

The cause-effect connection can be conceived as a one-way, one-directional action only

in the simplest and most limited cases. The idea of causality as the influence of one thing on

another is applied in fields of knowledge where it is possible and necessary to ignore feedback

and actually measure the quantitative effect achieved by the cause. Such a situation is mostly

characteristic of mechanical causality. For example, the cause of a stone falling to the ground is

mutual gravitation, which obeys the law of universal gravitation, and the actual fall of the stone to

the ground results from gravitational interaction. However, since the mass of the stone is infinitely

small compared with the mass of the earth, one can ignore the stone's effect on the earth. So

ultimately we come to the notion of a one-way effect with only one body (the earth) operating as

the active element, while the other (the stone) is passive. In most cases, however, such an

approach does not work because things are not inert, but charged with internal activity.

Therefore, in experiencing effect they in their turn act on their cause and the resulting action is

not one-way but an interaction.

In complex cases one cannot ignore the feedback of the vehicle of the action on other

interacting bodies. For example, in the chemical interaction of two substances it is impossible to

separate the active and passive sides. This is even more true of the transformation of elementary

particles. Thus the formation of molecules of water cannot be conceived as the result of a one-

way effect of oxygen on hydrogen or vice versa. It results from the interaction of two atoms of

hydrogen and one of oxygen. Mental processes are also a result of the interaction of the

environment and the cortex. To sum up, all processes in the world are evoked not by a one-way or one-sided action but are based on the relationship of at least two interacting objects.

Just as various paths may lead to one and the same place, so various causes lead to one

and the same effect. And one and the same cause may have different consequences. A cause

does not always operate in the same way, because its result depends not only on its own

essence but also on the character of the phenomenon it influences. Thus, the heat of the sun

dries out canvas, evokes extremely complex processes of biosynthesis in plants, etc. Intense

heat melts wax but tempers steel. At the same time an effect in the form of heat may be the

result of various causes: sun rays, friction, a mechanical blow, chemical reaction, electricity,

disintegration of an atom, and so on. He would be a bad doctor who did not know that the same

diseases may be due to different causes. Headache, for instance, has more than one hundred.

The rule of only one cause for one effect holds good only in elementary cases with causes

and effects that cannot be further analysed. In real life there are no phenomena that have only

one cause and have not been affected by secondary causes. Otherwise we should be living in a

world of pure necessity, ruled by destiny alone. 72

To understand the cause that engenders a change in the state of an object we should,

strictly speaking, analyse the interaction of the object with all other objects surrounding it. But

experience shows that not all these interactions are equally significant in changing the state of

the object. Some are decisive while others are insignificant. So, in practice, we are able to single

out a finite number of decisive interactions and distinguish them from those that are secondary.

In the sciences, particularly the natural sciences, one distinguishes general from specific

causes, the main from the secondary, the internal from the external, the material from the

spiritual, and the immediate from the mediate, with varying numbers of intervening stages. The

general cause is the sum-total of all the events leading up to a certain effect. It is a kind of knot of

events with some very tangled threads that stretch far back or forward in space and time. The

establishing of a general cause is possible only in very simple events with a relatively small

number of elements. Investigation usually aims at revealing the specific causes of an event.

The specific cause is the sum-total of the circumstances whose interaction gives rise to a

certain effect. Moreover, specific causes evoke an effect in the presence of many other

circumstances that have existed in the given situation even before the effect occurs. These

circumstances constitute the conditions for the operation of the cause. The specific cause is

made up of those elements of the general cause that are most significant in the given situation.

Its other elements are only conditions. Sometimes an event is caused by several circumstances,

each of which is necessary but insufficient to bring about the phenomenon in question.

Sometimes we can clearly perceive the phenomenon that gives rise to this or that effect.

But more often than not a virtually infinite number of interlocking causes give rise to the

consequences we are concerned with. In such cases we have to single out the main cause—the

one which plays the decisive role in the whole set of circumstances.

Objective causes operate independently of people's will and consciousness. Subjective

causes are rooted in psychological factors, in consciousness, in the actions of man or a social

group, in their determination, organisation, experience, know ledge, and so on.

Immediate causes should be distinguished from mediate causes, that is to say, those that

evoke and determine an effect through a number of intervening stages. For example, a person

gets badly hurt psychologically, but the damage does not take effect at once. Several years may

elapse and then in certain circumstances, among which the person's condition at the time has a

certain significance, the effect begins to make itself felt in the symptoms of illness. When

analysing causality we sometimes speak of a "minor" cause giving rise to major effects. This so-

called "minor cause of a major effect" is the cause not of the whole long and ramified chain of

phenomena that produces the final result, but only the cause of the first link in the chain.

Sometimes the "minor cause" is merely a factor that starts up quite different causal factors.

These are "triggering" factors, 73 factors relating to the initial stage of avalanche processes and to a whole system's loss of labile equilibrium.

Any phenomenon depends on a definite diversity of conditions to bring it into existence.

While it is only one of the circumstances conducive to a certain effect, the cause is the most

active and effective element in this process, it is an interaction that converts necessary and

sufficient conditions into a result. We sometimes treat the absence of something as a cause. For

example, some illnesses are attributed to lack of resistance in an organism or a lack of vitamins.

However, absence should not be regarded as a cause but merely as a condition for disease. For

a cause to actually take effect there must be certain conditions, that is to say, phenomena

essential for the occurrence of the given event but not in themselves causing it. Conditions

cannot in themselves give rise to the effect, but the cause is also powerless without them. No

cause can give rise to illness if the organism is not susceptible to it. We know that when a

person's organism is infected with certain microbes he may fall ill or he may not. The way a

cause takes effect and the nature of the consequence depend on the character of the conditions.

Sometimes there is only one direct and immediate cause of death or injury—a bullet. But more

often the causes and conditions are intricately combined, some of them being only secondary

circumstances.

When discussing the relationship of cause and condition one must remember that the

term "condition" is used in two senses, the narrow and the broad. Apart from what we mean by

condition in the narrow sense, conditions in the broad sense comprise such factors as

"background" and "environment" and various factors of a causal nature. But there is no strict and

consistent dividing line between the two basic senses of the term, just as there is no dividing line

between condition and cause. This fact often leads to an incorrect use of the two terms and to

wrong definition of the various conditioning factors. Avoidance of incorrect usage is made all the

more difficult by the overlapping of the accepted meanings of the two terms "cause" and

"condition" and also the term "foundation".

Science is gradually evolving special concepts relating to the categories of "foundation",

"condition" and "cause", which, when used together with these categories, make it possible to

define genetic links more exactly.

In various fields of knowledge the problem of the relationship between cause and

condition is solved in different ways, depending mainly on the complexity of the relationships that

are being studied, their uniformity or, on the contrary, the distinctness and comparative

importance of separate factors. But the degree of abstraction usually employed in the given

science also affects the treatment of this question. So the meaning of the cause and condition

categories in the system of concepts of various sciences may also differ considerably. One could

scarcely apply the relation of cause and condition that is revealed in studying, for example,

physical phenomena, to physiological processes, or vice versa. 74

objects, events that are absent, not only by what surrounds man but also by that which may be

far away from him in time and space, not only by the present and the past, but also by the future,

which is viewed as an aim and becomes a motivation for men's activity. Determination may thus

have a two-way direction. Knowledge introduces the future into the determining principle of the

present.

The animal's active relationship with the environment is associated with a new type of

determination: the conditioning of its behaviour by the task with which it is confronted. For

example, birds build their nests in order to breed their young and protect them.

The principle of determinism involves recognition of the objectivity, the universality of

causal connections and has always played a vastly important methodological and heuristic role in

scientific cognition. The primary assumption for any scientific research has always been that all

events of the natural and intellectual world obey a firm regular connection, known as the law of

causality. Any field of knowledge would cease to be scientific if it abandoned the principle of

causality. Causality and purpose. When observing the astonishing adaptation and "rational"

organisation of plants and animals, or the "harmony" of the celestial spheres, people even in

ancient times asked themselves where this harmonious organisation of all that exists had come

from. Thinkers have proceeded from various principles in trying to explain this phenomenon. The

teleologists assume that there is an underlying purpose in everything, that at bottom nature has

some intrinsic expectation and intention and is full of hidden meaning.

The idea of teleology arises when a spontaneously operating cause comes to be regarded

as a consciously acting cause, and even one that acts in a predetermined direction, that is to

say, a goal- oriented cause. This implies that the ultimate cause or aim is the future, which

determines the process taking place in the present. The doctrine that the universe as a whole is

proceeding according to a certain plan cannot be proved empirically. The existence of an

ultimate goal assumes that someone must have put it. Teleology therefore leads to theology.

Instead of giving a causal explanation of why this or that phenomenon occurred in nature,

teleology asks for what purpose it occurred. And to prove his case the teleologist usually refers to

the purposeful structure of organisms in nature. One has only to observe the structure of the

wing of a butterfly, the behaviour of an ant, a mole, a fish, in order to realise how purposefully

everything is constructed. The crudest form of teleology is the claim that nature provides some

living creatures for the sake of others, for example, cats are provided in order to eat mice and

mice are there to provide food for cats. The goal of the whole process of evolution of the animal

world is man and all the other animals were created to make things comfortable for man.

Heinrich Heine tells the story of the contented bourgeois with a "foolishly knowing" face

who tried to teach him the principles of such teleology. He drew my attention, says Heine, "to the

purpose and usefulness of everything in nature. The trees were green because the green colour

was 77

good for the eyes. I agreed with him and added that God had created cattle because beef tea

was good for man's health, that He had created the donkey so that people could make

comparisons, and that He had created man himself so that man could eat beef tea and not be a

donkey. My companion was delighted at finding a fellow thinker in me, he beamed with joy and

was quite sorry to leave me."12Heine took the humorous view, but the scientific argument against

teleology in nature was

provided by Darwin, who not only struck a blow at teleology in the natural sciences but also gave

an empirical explanation of its rational meaning. Teleology feeds on the belief that everything

revolves around us and has us in mind. Instead of giving a causal explanation why this or that

natural phenomenon occurred, teleology offers conjectures about the purpose served by its

appearance. But can one ask nature, as though it were a rational being, why it created such a

strange world of forms and colours? Can one accuse it of malicious intent when it produces

ugliness? Nature is indifferent, it does not care whether it creates a lion or a fly. The relative

perfection that allows its creatures to orient themselves in the environment, the adaptation to

conditions and the adequacy of their reactions to external stimuli, which is found in all animals

and plants, are real facts. The structure, for example, of the stem of a plant can serve as a model

for an architect who sets himself the task of designing the strongest possible structure with the

smallest quantity of materials and the greatest economy in weight. Spinoza, who provided a

splendid criticism of teleology in his day, did not deny purpose in the structure of the human

body. He urged us not to gape at it "like a fool" but to seek the true causes of the miracles and

consider natural things with the eyes of a scientist. This was exactly what Darwin did, and he

revealed the natural mechanism of this amazing adaptiveness of the organism to the conditions

of its existence. His theories on natural selection showed that delightful blossoms exist not to

please our aesthetic feelings or to demonstrate the refinement of the Almighty's taste, but to

satisfy the extremely earthly needs of vegetable organisms, i.e., the normal process of pollination

and perpetuation of the species.

Changes in the world of animals and plants come about through interaction with their

conditions of life. If these changes benefit the organism, that is to say, help it to adapt to the

environment and survive, they are preserved by natural selection, become established by

heredity and are passed on from generation to generation, thus building up the purposeful

structure of organisms, the adaptiveness to the environment that strike our imagination so

forcibly. Brightly coloured flowers attract the insects by means of which pollination takes place.

The beautiful plumage of male birds was developed by means of sexual selection. But adaptation

is never absolute. It always has a relative character and turns into its opposite when a radical

change in conditions occurs, as can be seen, for example, from the existence of rudimentary

organs. 12 Heinrich Heine, Werke, Briefwechsel, Lebenszeugnisse. Band 5. Reisebilder I. 1824-1828. Akademie-Verlag, Berlin. Editions du CNRS, Paris, 1970, S. 29. 78

To sum up, then, what we have is selection without a selector, self-operating, blind and

ruthless, working tirelessly and ceaselessly for countless centuries, choosing vivid external forms

and colours and the minutest details of internal structure, but only on one condition, that all these

changes should benefit the organism. The cause of the perfection of the organic world is natural

selection! Time and death are the regulators of its harmony.

7. System and Structure The system and its elements. A system is an internally organised whole where elements are so

intimately connected that they operate as one in relation to external conditions and other

systems. An element may be defined as the minimal unit performing a definite function in the

whole. Systems may be either simple or complex. A complex system is one whose elements may

also be regarded as systems or subsystems.

All things, properties and relations that strike us as something independent are essentially

parts of some system, which in its turn is part of an even bigger system, and so on ad infinitum.

For example, the whole of world civilisation is no more than a large and extremely complex self-

developing system, which comprises other systems of varying degrees of complexity.

Every system is something whole. So anything that corresponds to the demands of unity

and stability—an atom, a molecule, a crystal, the solar system, the organism, society, a work of

art, a theory—may be regarded as a system. Every system forms a whole, but not every whole is

a system.

We usually call the parts of a system itselements. If in investigating a system we wish to

identify its elements we should regard them as elementary objects in themselves. Once we have

established them as something relatively indivisible in one system, elements may be regarded in

their turn as systems (or subsystems), consisting of elements of a different order, and so on. The concept of structure. The aim of scientific cognition is to discover law-governed relations

between the elements forming a given system. In the process of this research we identify the

structures peculiar to that system. When studying the content of an object, we enumerate its

elements such as, for example, the parts of a certain organism. But we do not stop at that, we try

to understand how these parts are coordinated and what is made up as a result, thus arriving at

the structure of the object. Structure is the type of connection between the elements of a whole. It

has its own internal dialectic. Wholeness must be composed in a certain way, its parts are

always related to the whole. It is not simply a whole but a whole with internal divisions. Structure

is a composite whole, or an internally organised content. 79

But structure is not enough to make a system. A system consists of something more than

structure: it is a structure with certain properties. When a structure is understood from the

standpoint of its properties, it is understood as a system. We speak of the "solar system" and not

the solar structure. Structure is an extremely abstract and formal concept.

Structure implies not only the position of its elements in space but also their movement in

time, their sequence and rhythm, the law of mutation of a process. So structure is actually the

law or set of laws that determine a system's composition and functioning, its properties and

stability. Structure and function. The life of a structure manifests itself in its function, they condition

each other. The structures of the organs of the body, for instance, are connected with their

functions. Any breakdown in structure, any deformation of an organ leads to a distortion of the

function. In the development of organisms changes begin with the reorganisation of an organ's

function under the influence of changing conditions of life, while its structure may survive for a

time without any substantial modification. However, change of activity sooner or later leads to a

change in structure. Functional disturbances in organs precede their morphological distortions.

The contradiction between the organism's new mode of life and its structure is resolved by a

modification in the latter. All the organs and functions of a bird, for example, are adapted to an

aerial mode of life. The amazingly purposeful feather structure protects the bird from cold during

the rapid changes of temperature in flight. The fact that a bird can fly is observable even when it

is on ground. We can see this from its streamlined body, its fine-boned structure which allows it

to pass through the air with minimum expenditure of energy, and from the design of the wings.

The whole structure embodies the idea of flight. But a colourful butterfly resembles a flying

flower. And this too is understandable because a butterfly feeds on the nectar of a flower and its

resemblance to a flower protects it from birds when it is sitting motionless on a blossom. The life

of the bird is associated with air and the life of a butterfly is bound up with flowers. Their

functions, their ways of life determine their structure.

To sum up, function organises structure. The methods of morphology are subordinate to

the methods of physiology. The function of sight organised the eye, while labour was responsible

for the structure of the hand. But being an organised function, structure in its turn determines

function. Whole and part. We call something a whole that embraces all its parts in such a way as to create a unity.

The category of part expresses the object not in itself but as something in relation to what

it is a part of, to that in which it realises its potentials and prospects. For example, an organ is

part of an organism taken as a whole. Consequently, the categories of whole and part express a

relationship between objects in which one object, being a complex and integral whole, is a unity

of other objects which form its parts. A part is subject to the influence of the whole, which is

present, as it were, in 80

all its parts. Every part feels the influence of the whole, which seems to permeate the parts and

exist in them. Thus, in a tragic context even a joke becomes tragic; a free atom is distinctly

different from an atom that forms part of a molecule or a crystal; a word taken out of context

loses much or all of its meaning.

At the same time the parts have an influence on the whole. The organism is a whole and

disfunction of one of its organs leads to disbalance of the whole. For example, against a

background of rational thinking an obsessive idea may sometimes have a very substantial effect

on the general condition of the individual.

The categories of whole and part are relative; they have meaning only in relation to each

other. The whole exists thanks to its parts and in them. The parts, in their turn, cannot exist by

themselves. No matter how small a particle we name, it is something whole and at the same time

a part of another whole. The largest whole that we can conceive of is ultimately only a part of an

infinitely greater whole. Everything in nature is a part of the universe.

Various systems are divided into three basic types of wholeness. The simplest type is the

unorganised or summative whole, an unsystematic conglomeration of objects (a herd of cattle,

for example). This category also includes a mechanical grouping of heterogeneous things, for

example, rock consisting of pebbles, sand, gravel, boulders, and so on.

In such a whole the connection between the parts is external and obeys no recognisable

law. We simply have a group of unsystematic formations of a purely summative character. The

properties of such a whole coincide with the sum of the properties of its component parts.

Moreover, when objects become part of an unorganised whole or leave such a whole, they

usually undergo no qualitative change. For this type of whole the characteristic feature is the

varying lifetime of its components.

The second, more complex type of whole is the organised whole, for example, the atom,

the molecule, the crystal. Such a whole may have varying degrees of organisation, depending on

the peculiar features of its parts and the character of the connection between them. In an

organised whole the composing elements are in a relatively stable and law-governed

interrelationship. Its properties cannot be reduced to the mechanical sum of the properties of its

parts. Rivers "lose themselves" in the sea, although they are in it and it would not exist without

them. Water possesses the property of being able to extinguish fire, but the parts of which it is

composed, taken separately, possess quite different properties: hydrogen is itself flammable and

oxygen maintains or boosts combustion. Zero in itself is nothing, but in the composition of a

number its role is highly significant, and at times gigantically so, by increasing 100 into 1,000, for

instance. A hydrogen atom consists of a proton and an electron. But strictly speaking, this is not

true. The statement contains the same error as the phrase "this house is built of pine". The mass

of an atom of hydrogen 81

is not equal to the total mass of the proton and the electron. It is less than that mass because in

combining into the system of the hydrogen atom the proton and the electron lose something,

which escapes into space in the form of radiation.

The third, highest and most complex type of whole is the organic whole, for example, the

organism, the biological species, society, science, arts, language, and so on. The characteristic

feature of the organic whole is the self-development and self-reproduction of its parts. The parts

of an organism if separated from the whole organism, not only lose some of their properties but

cannot even exist in the given quality that they have within the whole. The head is only a head

because it is capable of thinking. And it can only think as a part not only of the organism, but also

of society, history and culture.

An organic whole is formed not (as Empedocles assumed) by joining together ready-made

parts, separate organs flying around in the air, such as heads, eyes, ears, hands, legs, hair and

hearts. An organic whole arises, is born, and dies together with its parts. It is an integral whole,

with distinguishable parts. Sensations, perceptions, representations, concepts, memory, attention

do not exist in isolation; they form the synthetic knot which we call consciousness. The elements

that make up the whole possess a certain individuality and at the same time they "work for" the

whole. The whole is invisibly present, as it were, and guides the process of "assembly" of its

elements, that is to say, of its own self.

The point of a case exists, in a sense, before the case itself. For example, harmony in the

proper sense of the term is born at the moment when the musician consciously or unconsciously

begins to interest himself in a simultaneous combination of sounds, that is to say, a chord, which

thanks to the organisation of its elements has its own definite musical individuality. A harmonic

"phrase" acquires its meaning from a certain way of arranging various chords and their

interrelationship.

The defining attribute of harmony is a relationship between the elements of the whole in

which the development of one of them is a condition for the development of the others or vice

versa. In art, harmony may be understood as a form of relationship in which each element, while

retaining a relative independence, contributes greater expressiveness to the whole and, at the

same time and because of this, more fully expresses its own essence. Beauty may be defined as

harmony of all the parts, united by that to which they belong in such a way that nothing can be

added or taken away or changed without detriment to the whole.

The parts of a whole may have varying degrees of relative independence. In a whole,

there may be parts whose excision will damage or even destroy the whole, but there may also be

parts whose loss causes no organic damage. For instance, the extremities or a part of the

stomach may be 82 of the effects of many causes. Everything brought about by secondary causes was defined by Aristotle as accidental, while necessity meant the impossibility of something being otherwise.

It is impossible to predict the sudden onset of certain diseases and the need for urgent

medical aid. It is impossible to say how many calls an ambulance service may receive in a given

period of time. Here we are confronted with a typical situation in which the emergency call, the

time the doctor spends at the bedside, the time taken by the ambulance in travelling from

hospital to home and back, all involve chance. A vast series of chance events has to be

considered.

The number of examples in which chance phenomena determine the character of a

certain process could be carried to infinity. It is much harder to enumerate the processes where

chance events have no influence.

What is chance? This category expresses mainly external, contingent, inessential events.

These are phenomena that are subjectively unexpected and objectively extraneous. There are

phenomena that in certain conditions may or may not occur, that may be of one or another kind,

whose existence or non-existence, or existence of one or another kind, is based not in itself but

in something else. These are external chance events. Intrinsic chance events, on the other hand,

are events that have been "stirred up" by necessity itself, by variously oriented forms of its

manifestation.

External chance is beyond the demands and power of a given necessity. It is determined

by extraneous circumstances. A person steps on a banana skin and falls over. Here we have the

cause of his fall, but it does not follow from the logic of the victim's actions. He might not have

fallen. He is the victim of the sudden intervention of blind chance. In general both necessary and

chance consequences arise from people's actions. One can be blamed only for the necessary

consequences of action; only they are connected with the nature of the action itself and they

alone could be foreseen.

All events that we sometimes lump together under the heading of "bloody-mindedness",

such as the slice of bread that falls butter-side down or the bus that comes late just when we are

in a great hurry, may be considered examples of external chance. They are so-called

"coincidences".

Chance may be favourable or unfavourable to a person. For example, in war more than

anywhere else, "things turn out to be different from what we imagine; when we see them close

up, they look different from how they appear at a distance. The architect can calmly observe a

building going up according to his plan. Or the doctor, although he has to reckon with a great

number of chance and unknown influences in his work, does know exactly what effect certain

drugs will have. But war is different. The commander of a large military unit is constantly at the

mercy of waves of false and true information, of mistakes caused by fear, negligence, haste or

obstinacy, due to correct 98

or incorrect notions, evil intent or a false or genuine sense of duty, laziness or exhaustion; he is besieged by chance events that no one could possibly foresee."15

One and the same event may be necessary in one relation and accidental in another. For

example, a baby girl is born. Is this a case of necessity? In relation to the final result of the

development of the embryo, yes. But from the standpoint of development of the given nation or of

world history it is a chance event. Sex mutation is still one of nature's secrets. A single mutation

is the expression of necessity of certain physico-chemical processes in the organism. But in

relation to the organism and even more to the species, it is a matter of chance. In reality,

therefore, any phenomenon at one and the same time but in different relations may be either

necessary or accidental.

The necessary carves a road for itself through an infinite number of accidents. Chance

introduces an element of instability in law-governed processes and this is expressed in the

category of probability. Why does necessity manifest itself in the form of chance? It can come

about only through the individual, which is moulded by an infinite number of circumstances, all of

which leave their unique stamp on it. Accidents influence the course of a necessary process,

accelerating or retarding it. In the course of their development accidents may turn into

necessities. For example, the regular attributes of one or another biological species originally

appeared as accidental deviations from the attributes of another species. Such accidents give life

and perspective to necessity.

The chance phenomenon may strike us as something necessary or even unavoidable, if

the space-time dimension in which it occurs is narrowed while we observe it, and if an increasing

number of circumstances have to be taken into account. If we tackle certain events from a

distance, a road collision, for example, may be regarded as accidental. But let us suppose that

there was ice on the road. Two cars were travelling towards each other at high speed. One of

them skidded. Neither driver could do anything and the collision was inevitable. Chance is closely

related to necessity. To understand whether any event was necessary or accidental, we must

consider the whole set of conditions that gave rise to it. And when the given conditions and

relations are taken into account, the possible outcomes are often narrowed down from two or

more to only one. And then we can say for certain whether an event occurred of necessity or by

accident, and what was necessary or accidental in that event.

It is important in practical and theoretical work to take into account the dialectics of chance

and necessity. No one should bank on chance, but it is foolish to ignore favourable opportunities.

A good many discoveries and inventions have been made thanks to lucky coincidences. No

matter how cleverly a bold operation is planned, there must always be something left to chance.

Fire escapes, life and property insurance, additional medical personnel at holiday times—all

these measures are taken to counteract the effects of chance, of accidents. 15 Carl von Clausewitz, Vom Kriege, Verlag des Ministerium für National Verteidigung, Berlin, 1957, S. 178. 99

Scientific work never ignores the factor of chance events, even when they play a

secondary role. The main goal of cognition is to discover laws. But to do so one must analyse the

specific form of chance in which the necessary manifests itself. Through the investigation of

various individual cases scientific thought moves towards discovery of the underlying, law-

governed element.

In science there are laws that reflect necessity almost in "pure" form, the mathematically

refined laws of classical mechanics, for example. But there are also propositions that reflect both

the necessary and the accidental alternatively. At the same time there are propositions that

embrace necessity and chance as a unity. To predict a solar eclipse astronomy abstracts from

the accidental and takes only the necessary. But the forecasting of historical events involves

both. For example, acceleration or retarding of historical progress sometimes depends to a great

degree on subjective factors, including such chance elements as the character, health or talent of

the people in charge.

The task of science and particularly philosophy is to detect the necessity disguised as

chance; but this should not be taken to mean that chance is merely a figment of our imagination

and should therefore be ignored wherever possible so that we can perceive the truth. There are

certain general needs, for example, the need for food, drink, clothing, etc., and it appears to be

largely a matter of chance how these needs are satisfied. The soil may be more fertile in one

place than another; harvests may differ from year to year; one man is diligent, the other idle. But

this very chaos produces general principles. And facts that appear to be unconnected and

disorderly are guided by necessity, the uncovering of which is the task of political economy.

Confronted with a mass of accidents, it reveals their underlying laws. Probability as the measure of realisation of chance. The concept of probability arose in logic

as a means of defining lack of proof. But life has accumulated large numbers of facts that force

us to consider probability as a problem in itself. This problem has been scientifically expressed in

mathematics, in the theory of probability. Pascal evolved this theory as a means of

understanding gambling in which the main role is played by chance. Today probability relations

are studied in the most diverse spheres of nature, society, and science. It is recognised that

nature is governed by certain laws but lacks precision. Some scientists have suggested that

probability may be taken to denote a subjective rather than an objective estimate by the knower.

Others believe that this point of view cannot be accepted because the probability of a chance

event is always independent of our reasoning about it. For example, our personal view of the

chances that a ship will arrive safely exerts no influence on the actual outcome of its voyage.

The theory of probability involves the study of mass phenomena. It can be applied only

where large numbers of more or less equivalent factors take part. The classical theory of

probability derived from the study of chance in gambling defines probability as the relation of the

number of favourable outcomes to the total number of equally possible results. 100

The future is not simply predetermined by what exists in the present. Objective

possibilities of development may be divided into two groups: the necessary, those that must

become reality, and the unnecessary, those that may not occur. A certain event is accidental if its

outcome is only a probability and cannot be accurately predicted. If on the other hand there is a

subjective factor, if people are taking part in bringing certain events about, the outcome is even

more difficult, or strictly speaking, impossible to predict. Human actions are not universally

predetermined, they are not programmed once and for all. Events whose occurrence cannot be

determined with any degree of probability are called indefinite events. The life of nature is a kind

of constant experiment, a kind of game or spinning of the coin, in which some probabilities

become reality and others remain unrealised.

Probability is a degree of possibility, the extent to which a given event may be realised in

given conditions and under a given law. It characterises the degree to which a certain possibility

is grounded, the measure of its ability to become reality, the degree of its approximation to

realisation, the ratio of favourable and unfavourable factors. Probability is not simply the measure

of our expectation. It is an objective measure of the possibility of chance becoming reality.

Probability tells us how likely an event is to happen, what the objective grounds are for its

happening. Or whether it may happen at all. More probable means a more justified possibility.

Probability is a property of sets of events. If we spin a coin only a few times or only once it

is impossible to say which side up it will land. Here we are in the power of chance. But this power

is delegated, as it were, to the statistical law that when a large number of tosses are made, both

possibilities occur with an equal degree of necessity. The coin is symmetrical and this is the main

cause of the equally probable result. If the probability of an event is very small, we ignore it. We

sit at a lecture, for instance, without worrying about the possibility of being struck by a meteorite.

Necessity is a one hundred per cent probability. The absence of any probability denotes the

complete unlikeliness or impossibility of an event. The concept of impossibility reflects not only

the fact that some possibilities do not exist but also what processes do not allow the existence of

these possibilities.

Probability relations have two aspects, the internal, connected with the structure of the

object in question (in our example, the symmetry of the coin), and external, connected with the

frequency of the event (the number of tosses). The objective link between the internal and

external aspects of probability is expressed in the law of large numbers, which states that the

total effect of a large number of accidental facts leads in certain extremely general conditions to a

result almost independent of chance. Every event is the resultant of necessary and accidental

causes. The law of large numbers acts as the law of stable causes overcoming the influence of

accidental factors. Constancy, stability appears within the limits of the conditions and causes that

produce a certain phenomenon. In the example of spinning a coin the main cause (symmetry of

the coin) makes itself felt as the number of experiments increases. This cause operates

continuously in one direction and 101

finally leads to the realisation of both possibilities. In a large number of experiments the

frequency of a number of chance events remains almost constant. This leads us to assume the

existence of laws in phenomena occurrence that do not depend on the experimenter and that

reveal themselves in an almost constant frequency.

The stability with which some chance possibilities are realised in the mass captures our

imagination, and in some people evokes a mystical feeling of fatal predestination and the

inexorable power of numbers. The numbers of marriages, divorces, births, deaths, crimes, of

passengers travelling by a certain means of transport over a certain period of time, the frequency

of injuries in certain sports (mountain climbing, speedway racing, fencing), all exhibit a

surprisingly stable regularity. For example, the number of children born out of wedlock runs at an

average of 9 per cent for the same number of people year after year. Decades of observation

have yielded another curious law: during and after prolonged wars the birth rate of male babies

tends to increase.

Statistical regularity, which exists objectively in a mass of individual phenomena, with its

specific relationship between the necessary and the accidental, the individual and the general,

the whole and its parts, cause and effect, possible and probable, constitutes the objective basis

on which the massive structure of statistical research methods is erected. The methods of

probability theory and the directly related statistical methods are becoming increasingly important

in all fields of contemporary science. Statistical physics has developed out of classical physics

and probability principles have acquired fundamental significance in quantum mechanics.

Information theory, the bedrock of cybernetics, is founded on the probability theory. Biologists,

economists, sociologists and engineers are making ever wider use of probability methods. A

special branch of logic— probability logic—has emerged and is being intensively developed. No

matter how profound and comprehensive our knowledge, it cannot dispense with probability

because of the unavoidable fact that probability in knowledge expresses a vital gradation

between the possible and the real.

The real and the possible. The process of development is always connected with the passing of

the possible into the real. Everything that exists is strictly and continually controlled by the law of

the conservation of matter: nothing can come from nothing. The new must have premises in the

old. The sources of the future lie both in the past and in the present. The person who exists in

reality is preceded by his potential, by that which is given in the embryo. Everything arises from

that which exists as a possibility but not as a reality. A child possesses only a capacity or a real

possibility of rational thought, but the possibility has not yet been realised. The child is not yet

capable of rational action.

By means of the categories of the possible and the real thought encompasses the fact that

matter is active, that it constantly acquires more and more new forms of existence, transforming

itself from some forms into others, moving from one state to another, that it possesses an infinite

number of different potentials. Possibility is not so much "a particular property of the non-

existent"

102

as a reality existing in a particular way. For instance, the regrettable possibility of war causes

such enormous movements of society's material and spiritual forces that it would be wrong to

deprive this possibility of the status of real existence. On the other hand, a bright and hopeful

prospect may possess no less (or even more) productive power and hence, existence. Thus,

"existence as a possibility" is an independent sphere of reality in its own right.

The material world resembles a boundless field sown with various seeds of possibility,

which are not brought into the world by any supernatural forces but arise and exist there,

expressing the self-motion and self-development of reality. Consequently, the category of the

real embraces all possibilities because there is nowhere else for them to be, except in reality.

Everything possible is possible because it exists in reality as the embryo of something else, as its

orientation on the future, on change, transformation into something else. When we speak of

possibility, we think of some perhaps very small "beginning" of something, which lies within that

which possesses the possibility, that is to say, within concrete reality. This beginning also

comprises the programme of that which does not yet exist in that which exists. Therefore, by

reality in the broad sense we mean both the possible, the process of creating the new, and its

existence at all levels of perfection, that is to say, the action of all the real forces in the universe:

nature in all the majesty of its material and information-energy formations, properties and

relations, world history with all its countless small- or large-scale events and collisions, man with

his sophisticated mind, and the material and spiritual culture of society in their mutual

relationship. Reality takes in both the internal and external, the essential and the phenomenal,

the law-governed and the accidental, the individual, general and particular, cause and effect,

potential, realisation and what has been realised. Reality, to the degree that it has been

comprehended by humanity, is expressed in the entire endlessly subtle system of concepts of

science, philosophy and culture as a whole.

While stressing the unity of possibility and reality, the former's inclusion in the latter, we

should at the same time bear in mind their difference or even their polarity. The possibility of

anything is not yet its reality and perhaps is never destined to become anything of the kind. The

category of possibility expresses the fact that a phenomenon has already begun to exist but has

not yet acquired its perfect form. Hence, possibility is a unity of existence and non existence.

Development is a process of generation of pos sibilities and conversion of one of them into

reality. That which is becoming is only heading in the direction of existence and in this sense it

does not yet exist. At the same time, having once begun, it already exists. It is as yet only a

"prospect" of existence.

Possibilities delight us most of all in child prodigies. Youth is also full of promise. But not

for nothing do we sometimes say about prodigies that their future is often left behind in the past.

That's the way life is. Only when it grows up does the child reveal to the full its human essence,

its possibilities. Only a mature person knows for sure what he is capable of, which of his

possibilities have turned out to be real and what lies behind him as vain hopes and fruitless

impulses. He stands 103

Progress consists in extension of possibilities of further development, its acceleration. As various

forms of matter attain higher levels, the velocities of development increase. For example,

essential qualitative changes in cosmic systems take place over periods measured in millions

and billions of years. The formation of the Sun and its planets, for example, required

approximately5,000 million years. Geological changes on Earth take place much quicker than

the formation of the Earth itself. It took approximately a thousand million years for life to appear

on Earth. Animate nature develops much quicker. Every succeeding epoch of the Earth's

development is shorter than the one before and yet more diverse forms are born and die in the

shorter period. In the four or five thousand million years that life has existed on Earth there have

appeared thousands of animal and vegetable species, including man's ancestor, which labour

turned into a human being in a mere two million years.

Engels compared the progressive development of social life to "...a free hand-drawn

spiral, the turns of which are not too precisely executed. History begins its course slowly from an

invisible point, languidly making its turns around it, but its circles become ever larger, the flight

becomes ever swifter and more lively, until at last history shoots like a flaming comet from star to

star, often skimming its old paths, often intersecting them, and with every turn it approaches

closer to infinity."16

In social history the pace of development increases as formations proceed from lower to

higher levels. Whereas the primitive communal system developed slowly (over 30 to 40 thousand

years it hardly reached the stage of the iron plough), the slave system moved ahead much

quicker. It achieved a high technological and spiritual culture in about 1,500 years. Feudalism

rose to an even higher level in about a thousand years. Capitalism required only about 200 years

to establish itself as the dominant form of social life. And in only a few decades socialism has

achieved transformations that cannot be compared with any previous period in history. There is no limit to human development and man can never say to himself, "Stop, I've had enough, there's nowhere else to go!"

Consequently, we arrive at a general principle: the pace of development grows as the

forms of organisation of matter move from the lower to the higher. It follows that the pace of

development of this or that material organisation in general, and of social forms of life in

particular, indicates how far they have gone towards perfection. This law expresses the

contradictoriness of the general direction of development: progress is related to regress,

irreversibility to circular movement, discontinuity to continuity, negation to succession, return to

the old in a new form bearing only a formal resemblance to one of the previous stages, cycle and

spiral. 16 F. Engels, "Retrograde Signs of the Time" in: K. Marx, F. Engels, Collected Works, Vol. 2, Progress Publishers, Moscow, 1976, p. 48. 117

Thus progress takes place not along a straight line of ascent. It puts out side branches,

and certain elements of the whole even take a reverse course. The progressive line of

development, being realisation of one of many possibilities, at the same time sets a limit on

motion in other directions. Every progress is in a sense restriction; it reinforces one-way

development and excludes the possibility of development in other directions.

The methodological and practical significance of this principle is important for an

understanding of the general tendency of development and the connection between past and

present that takes shape in the course of it. If the new arises out of the old and absorbs

everything positive therein, it means that in both science and practice we must give due credit to

the achievements of the past and critically accept its most valuable results.

Negation is a method of reasonable critical assimilation, based on the principle: "My

successors must go ahead of me, contradict me, even destroy my work while at the same time

continuing it. Only from such destructive work can progress be created."17

This principle helps us to understand where development is going, what it consigns to

oblivion, and what will grow and develop. The new is irresistible. In the long run, despite certain

retreats, zigzags, turns, it overcomes the obsolete. In practical activity, therefore, one should

always orient oneself on the new. One must listen attentively to the voice of life, notice and

support fresh beginnings, even if they have not yet taken root, for it is to them that the future

belongs. This is one of the important conditions for wise policy-making in everything.

In the present age the direction of the development of society is the centre of acute

ideological struggle. During the period of ascendant development of capitalism many bourgeois

philosophers supported the ideas of social progress. However, as antagonistic contradictions

intensify, notes of pessimism and lack of faith in the future have become increasingly audible.

Every advance made by humanity is presented as a further step along the road to destruction.

But the history of the development of nature and humanity proves that progressive development

is an immutable law of life.

11. Contradiction and Harmony The unity of opposites and contradiction. One of the basic questions of world-view and the

methodology of cognition is this: What is the cause of the motion and development of

phenomena and is it in the world itself or outside it? Some reply that just as the existence of a

clock assumes a clockmaker, so the existence and motion of the world presupposes a creator

who steers that world. Just as a clock works when it is wound up by its owner, so the world

moves at the will of a higher 17 V. Michurin,Works, Vol. 4, Moscow, 1948, p. 402 (in Russian).

118

power. But if the existence and motion of the world presuppose a creator, the existence of the

creator himself, by the logic of such thinking, must in its turn presuppose the existence of a

creator of an even higher order. And this gets us into false infinity. The scientific world-view does

not seek causes of the motion of the universe beyond its boundaries. It finds them in the universe

itself, in its contradictions. The scientific approach to an object of research involves skill in

perceiving a dynamic essence, a combination in one and the same object of mutually

incompatible elements, which negate each other and yet at the same time belong to each other.

The ultimate cause of the development of any concrete system is interaction. Analysis

shows that interaction is possible between objects or elements of objects that are not identical to

one another but different. Identity and difference have their degrees. Difference, for example, can

be inessential or essential. The extreme case of difference is an opposite—one of the mutually

presupposed sides of a contradiction. In relation to a developing object difference is the initial

stage of division of the object into opposites. When it comes into interaction, an object seeks, as

it were, a complement for itself in that with which it is interacting. Where there is no stable

interaction there is only a more or less accidental external contact.

It is even more important to remember this point when we are talking about connections

between phenomena that are in the process of development. In the whole world there is no

developing object in which one cannot find opposite sides, elements or tendencies: stability and

change, old and new, and so on. The dialectical principle of contradiction reflects a dualistic

relationship within the whole: the unity of opposites and their struggle. Opposites may come into

conflict only to the extent that they form a whole in which one element is as necessary as

another. This necessity for opposing elements is what constitutes the life of the whole. Moreover,

the unity of opposites, expressing the stability of an object, is relative and transient, while the

struggle of opposites is absolute, ex pressing the infinity of the process of development. This is

because contradiction is not only a relationship between' opposite tendencies in an object or

between opposite objects, but also the relationship of the object to itself, that is to say, its

constant self- negation. The fabric of all life is woven out of two kinds of thread, positive and

negative, new and old, progressive and reactionary. They are constantly in conflict, fighting each

other.

The ancients used to say that everything comes about through strife. If a phenomenon

contains opposites, it must be in contradiction with itself. The same applies to the expression of

this phenomenon in thought. There is an obvious contradiction in the fact that a phenomenon

remains the same and at the same time constantly changes, that is, contains opposite

tendencies.

The opposite sides, elements and tendencies of a whole whose interaction forms a

contradiction are not given in some eternally ready-made form. At the initial stage, while existing

only as a possibility, contradiction appears as a unity containing an inessential difference. The

next stage is an essential difference within this unity. Though possessing a common basis,

certain 119

essential properties or tendencies in the object do not correspond to each other. The essential

difference produces opposites, which in negating each other grow into a contradiction. The

extreme case of contradiction is an acute conflict. Opposites do not stand around in dismal

inactivity; they are not something static, like two wrestlers in a photograph. They interact and are

more like a live wrestling match. Every development produces contradictions, resolves them and

at the same time gives birth to new ones. Life is an eternal overcoming of obstacles. Everything

is interwoven in a network of contradictions.

Contradictions in people's minds and actions have been expressed with brilliant accuracy

and vividness in the work of many great artists. The most notable example is, perhaps,

Shakespeare, who portrayed man's inner world with such depth of the insight into all the

contradictory passions that afflict the soul, the clash of motives, the conflict of emotions, the

rivalries between individuals, the critical states of will and mind, the contesting urges of good and

evil, the noble and the ignoble, the tragic and the comic. With great skill he traces the

development of character right up to the point of its conversion into its own opposite and the

contradictions between his characters often amount to individual expression of the contradictions

of social forces and interests.

In Dostoyevsky, to take another example, the assertion that all contradictions in life "live

together" never loses its force. No matter how nightmarish they may be, no one can escape

them; they pursue all men everywhere. Equilibrium and harmony. Thoughts of contradiction and opposites lead us on to ask whether

one may say categorically that contradictions always, simultaneously, presuppose and exclude

each other. Life has witnessed cases when opposites, not only exclude but also complement

each other, forming a harmonious whole. Take, for example, the problem of psychological

incompatibility in a work group, in everyday life, in the family. Compatibility necessarily

presupposes certain contradictions, which complement each other and, taken together, form a

harmonious whole, a symphony, in which a contrary does not exclude but presupposes its

opposite. Consequently, opposites may be combined in different ways and the result may be

cacophony or symphony. Pythagoreans spoke of harmony as something without which nothing

could exist. The Greek physician and thinker Alcmaeon believed that the health of the organism

depended on harmonious combination of contrasting qualities and forces, on their equilibrium,

while any superiority or domination of one of them could give rise to illness. This principle of

harmonious combination was applied to the universe as a whole. If there were no harmony,

contradictory and heterogeneous principles could not enter the synthetic whole of the universe.

Musical harmony, the agreement of different tones or measures, appears to Pythagoras and his

fellow-thinkers as merely an audible form of universal harmony and is determined by quantitative

relations. It is harmony that reveals the secret of the intrinsic agreement of opposites. This unity

in the heterogeneous, this agreement in difference, which is to be found in musical harmony, is

revealed throughout the universe. By harmony we mean a balanced and viable stable

combination of elements and their connections, their 120

internal and external interactions, all their motions. Harmony should be thought of as a process.

The life of the universe consists in the constant interruption and restoration of harmony, of

equilibrium: everything flows and balances out, everything balances out and flows. We could

indicate a number of forms of equilibrium connected with internal motion: the preservation of the

state of motion, for example, the preservation of the state of luminous radiation, the process of

life, the process of material and spiritual (intellectual) production, and so on. An equilibrium is

achieved and results in a stable, harmonious state of the interaction of opposites, which make up

the given process taken as a whole (for example, the balanced state of the internal processes of

the living organism), the maintenance of interactions between one phenomenon and another (for

example, the interaction of an organism and its environment), the stability of a certain form or law

(for example, the stability of laws governing physical, organic, social and psychological

processes), the equilibrium, the preservation of the basis that generates a given form of motion

(for example, the stability of fields of elementary particles as the condition for the origin of atoms,

atomic stability, the formation of inorganic and organic compounds, etc). In certain relatively

closed systems, the equilibrium of the opposed forces may be prolonged. For purposes of

research and use in technology, researchers have agreed to consider certain states of matter as

existing in ideally pure form and given them corresponding formulae. Meteorology, for instance,

attaches great importance to the study of the relative equilibrium of the atmosphere,

thermodynamics studies the relative ther modynamic equilibrium, and nuclear physics, the

radioactive equilibrium. Chemistry studies chemical equilibrium.

There is a huge range of so-called statistical equilibria. This is also characteristic of such a

highly complex living system as the human being, which is a dynamically balanced system in

both its bodily and psychological organisation. When we say of somebody that he is "an

unbalanced person", we refer to the pathological excitability of his nervous organisation, a

tendency to burst into fits of anger, often for no reason at all. Contradictions and their resolution. The motion of a contradiction consists in its

simultaneously being realised and resolved. Contradictions are constantly subsumed and

created, revived in a new form. The resolving of a contradictory system is also a means of

moving towards a new system that is historically destined to replace it.

Contradictions are resolved, overcome in struggle. They and their resolution stimulate

motion. The interaction of opposites, as a contradiction and its resolution, is what awakens every

seed to growth and every bud to unfold as a leaf, a flower, or a juicy fruit. Contradiction and its

resolution lend motion to things great and small and are revealed in the regular "reasonable"

order of the universe. They account for the unity of life and death, the beating of the pulse, the

motion of forces released in crystals, in plants, animals, human beings, society, and in the whole

universe. Unless resolved, contradictions do not "spur on" development, they are a necessary

but not sufficient condition for development. 121

There are many ways of resolving contradictions and they depend on various conditions,

including the character of the contesting parties in the case of contradictions in the life of human

beings and society. In some cases one side of the contradiction perishes and the other triumphs,

in others both sides perish, exhausting themselves in the struggle. There may also be a more or

less prolonged compromise between the contestants. The resolution of a contradiction may be

complete or partial, instantaneous or by stages. Let us take, for example, the present age. It is

full of contradictions of every type and variety. On the socio-political plane the situation is

dangerously tense because of the unrestrained arms race initiated by imperialism, which forces

the socialist countries to take measures to strengthen their defences. Relations between some

countries are badly strained. A fierce ideological struggle is going on between the countries of

socialism and capitalism. What do the peoples of the world desire? What is their main concern?

Everyone knows what it K. is and it was stated in full at the 26th Congress of the CPSU—to

achieve detente. The Soviet leadership has affirmed by positive action that it is seeking not to

build up contradictions between the world of socialism and capitalism but to resolve existing

contradictions by peaceful political means.

It would be a mistake to imagine that every contradiction leads to development. For

instance, conflict between the members of a family can hardly be regarded as a source of

development. Various processes evidently have an optimal contradictoriness, which encourages

development to the greatest degree.

The character of contradiction depends on the specific nature of the opposed sides and

also on the conditions in which their interaction takes place. Internal contradictions are interaction

of opposite sides within a given system, for example, within a certain animal species

(intraspecific struggle), within a given organism or society. External contradictions are the

interaction of opposites related to different systems, for example, between society and nature,

the organism and the environment, and so on. In the final analysis, the decisive contradictions in

development are the internal ones.

Antagonistic contradictions are interactions between implacably hostile classes, social

groups and forces. As a rule, they build up to the point of conflict and are resolved in social and

political revolutions. Non-antagonistic contradictions are interactions between classes whose

basic interests and aims coincide. The socialist revolution resolved and thus eliminated

antagonistic contradictions, but it did not eliminate contradic tions in general. Socialism has its

contradictions, for example, those between developing production and increasing demands,

between the advanced and the backward, between creative thinking and dogmatism. The main

contradiction is the one which in a whole set of contradictions plays the decisive role in

development. 122

Human consciousness is a form of mental activity, the highest form. By mental activity we

mean all mental processes, conscious and unconscious, all mental states and qualities of the

individual. These are mainly processes of cognition, internal states of the organism, and such

attributes of personality as character, temperament, and so on. Mental activity is an attribute of

the whole animal world. Consciousness, on the other hand, as the highest form of mental activity,

is inherent only in human beings, and even then not at all times or at all levels. It does not exist in

the newborn child, in certain categories of the mentally ill, in people who are asleep or in a coma.

And even in the developed, healthy and waking individual not all mental activity forms a part of

his consciousness; a great portion of it proceeds outside the bounds of consciousness and

belongs to the unconscious phenomena of the mind. The content of the activity of consciousness

is recorded in artifacts (including language and other sign systems), thus acquiring the form of

ideal existence, existence as knowledge, as historical memory. Consciousness also includes an

axiological, that is to say, evaluative aspect, which expresses the selectivity of consciousness, its

orientation on values evolved by society and accepted by the individual—philosophical, scientific,

political, moral, aesthetic, religious, etc. It includes the individual's relation both to these values

and to himself, thus becoming a form of self-consciousness, which is also social in origin. A

person's knowledge of himself becomes possible thanks to his ability to relate his principles and

orientation to the stand points of other people, his ability to consider these stand points in the

process of communication. The very term "consciousness", that is to say, knowledge acquired

together with others, points to the dialogical nature of consciousness.

The existence of several planes of consciousness has made it a target of research by

many sciences and all art. For philosophy the main question is the relationship of consciousness

to being. As a property of highly organised matter (the brain), consciousness is consciously

perceived existence, that is to say, a subjective image of the objective world or subjective reality,

and on the epistemological plane, as the ideal in contrast to the material and as a unity of the

two.

From the sociological standpoint consciousness may be regarded primarily as social

consciousness, the reflection of the existence, interests and ideas of various social groups,

classes, nations, society, and history as a whole in people's intellectual life. As the reflection of

being it takes various relatively independent forms.

In psychology consciousness is interpreted as the highest level of mental organisation of

the individual, when he separates himself from his environment and reflects this reality in the

form of mental images, which serve as regulators of goal-oriented activity. Consciousness is a

highly complicated system consisting of diverse and constantly interacting elements and existing

at different levels. This system has as its nucleus the processes of cognition, from elementary

sensations and perceptions to the highest manifestations of reason, emotional refinement and

the power of the human will. Sensations and perceptions are the immediate, sensuous forms of 128 consciousness. These are the foundation blocks, as it were, for the edifice of more complex intellectual formations and representations, imagination, intuition, logical and artistic thinking.

Consciousness could not have arisen and could not function without the mechanisms of

memory, that is to say, the ability to record, preserve and reproduce sensuous and conceptual

images. Consciousness not only reproduces reality in ideal forms, it also regulates the

individual's inner mental and practical activities, expressed in attention and efforts of will.

Attention and will are also facts of consciousness essential to the setting of goals. Before

undertaking anything in reality, a person "does" it ideally, in his imagination.

Human emotions and feelings are a fundamental "layer" of the world of consciousness. In

reflecting the world a person experiences its influence and his own relation to it, to things, to

other people and himself. Nothing happens in our consciousness without the participation of

feelings, which in people with a rich inner world acquire amazing degrees of subtlety, colour and

fullness. Conscious and unconscious phenomena of the mind. The colourful fabric of mental processes

is woven out of various "threads", ranging from the supreme clarity of consciousness at moments

of creative inspiration, through the dimness of the half-sleeping mind, to the complete darkness

of the unconscious, which accounts for a large part of man's mental life. For example, we hardly

realise all the consequences of our actions. Not all external impressions are focussed by our

consciousness. Many of our actions are automatic or habitual. However, despite the exceptional

significance and place of unconscious forms of mental activity, the human being is primarily a

conscious being. Awareness, understood as the evaluative aspect of consciousness, is the

highest level of regulation of human activity on the basis of accepted values, moral and other

social standards. It presupposes that these standards have become an integral component of the

individual's life. Having become part of the system of his beliefs, they are realised with a clear

and distinct understanding of ultimate aims and the possible consequences of action. Awareness

also presupposes a person's ability to analyse the motives of his own behaviour and choose the

most rational means of achieving his aims in accordance with the moral standards accepted in

society.

As a complex systemic formation consciousness has various levels of relative distinctness

or clarity. As a rule these levels are diagnosed in the healthy person by his own accounts and by

the degree of his orientation in the environment—in space, time, the logic of events, the people

around him and also in relation to himself, his thoughts, feelings and volitional orientation. When

consciousness is at a low level, we observe unmotivated swings of concentration from certain

objects of thought and actions that are sufficiently known, to unexpected mental targets,

unmotivated reorientation of action, and, in various mental disorders, to loss of the "thread" of

thought. One may also observe various degrees of clarity of consciousness, from the so-called

dawning, half-awake, torpid or simply ordinary perception of things to states of mind achieving

brilliant vision, amazingly keen intuitive insight into the essence of things. At the highest peaks of 129

consciousness we have the "superconscious" level of spiritual activity achieved in processes of

exceptionally inspired and productive creativity, when a new, original and sometimes huge-scale

idea is focussed in the consciousness with astonishing clarity.

Consciousness has a complex relationship with various forms of unconscious mental

phenomena. They have their own structure, whose elements are connected with each other and

also with consciousness and actions, which influence them and in their turn experience their

influence on them selves. We are sensibly aware of everything that influences us, but by no

means all sensations are a fact of our consciousness. The majority of them are peripheral or

even beyond its borders. Many of our actions, when originally formed, were consciously

controlled, but later became mechanical. Conscious activity is possible only when the maximum

number of elements of activity are performed automatically. As the child develops, many of his

functions gradually become automatic. Consciousness is relieved of the duty of worrying about

them. Thanks to this adaptation the unconscious takes care of the body's life-activity, and

irritants that would interfere with rational behaviour do not as a rule intrude on the healthy

person's consciousness. On the other hand, faced with violent intrusions by the unconscious, the

consciousness sometimes fights a desperate and losing battle with these streams of "unbidden

guests". This happens in cases of various mental disorders—obsessive or maniacal ideas, states

of alarm, of inconquerable, unmotivated fear, etc. Habit, as something mechanical, extends to all

forms of activity, including thought, on the principle of "I didn't mean to think of it, it just occurred

to me". The paradox lies in the fact that consciousness is present, in a way, in unconscious

forms of mental activity; though it does not keep close watch on everything that happens in these

dark recesses of the mind but only grasps the general picture. It may, however, at any moment

take control of habitual actions and accelerate, decelerate or even stop them altogether.

Excited by the powerful instinct of mating, the nightingale sings tirelessly through the

night, but this wonderful bird does not realise that its splendid trills express something beyond its

song, that objectively it expresses the urge to preserve and perpetuate the race. All of us,

individually and in our common efforts, sometimes resemble this little grey creature. Do we

always realise what response the words and message of our "songs" will bring back? Not

always.

Human activity is conscious only in relation to results that initially exist in plan and

intention as the goal. But realisation the goal cannot be understood as including all the

consequences of actions. The results of people's actions may differ from what was originally

intended. They come under the influence of external forces, which sometimes turn out to be quite

different from what people thought they were. For example, the ideologists of the French

bourgeois revolution (Rousseau, for example, and others) dreamed of the reign of reason,

fraternity and justice. The masses and the political parties fought in the name of these principles.

The task was enormous, the aims noble. But instead of enjoying the reign of reason France

received the dictatorship of Napoleon. 130

While rejecting the idealist explanation of consciousness as the individual's immanent

activity arising from the depths of his spirit, science at the same time explodes the concept of

metaphysical materialism, which treats consciousness as contemplation divorced from practice.

When we speak of the activeness of consciousness, we mean its selectivity, its ability to set itself

a goal, its generation of new ideas, acts of creative imagination, its guidance of practical activity.

The point of departure for any relationship to the real world is goal-setting activity. The main

reason for and historical necessity of the emergence and development of consciousness, which

enables man to get an accurate picture of the surrounding world, to foresee the future and on

this basis transform the world by his practical activity, is its goal-setting creative activity aimed at

changing the world in the interests of man and society. A person's consciousness is not merely a

contemplative reflection of objective reality; it creates it. When reality does not satisfy a person,

he sets out to change it by means of his labour and various forms of social activity. Self-consciousness. A human being is aware of the world and his attitude towards it and is

thus aware of himself. At this level, the objective and subjective begin to reveal their integral

unity. This duality in unity is in fact the "glimmering dawn of self-consciousness". Self-

consciousness was the answer to the imperative demand of social conditions of existence, which

from the outset required that a person should be able to assess his actions, words, thoughts and

feelings from the standpoint of certain social norms and to comprehend not only the surrounding

world but also himself. Like consciousness as a whole, self-consciousness was moulded by

labour and intercourse. In all forms of his activity a person constantly encounters not only the

external world but also himself, becomes the target of his own thoughts and evaluations. A

human being is a reflecting being. He is constantly thinking about his actions, thoughts, ideals,

feelings, his moral image, aesthetic tastes and socio-political positions, his relationship to

everything that goes on in the world. Human beings have the ability to look at themselves "from

the side". In the philosophical sense a self-conscious person is one who is fully aware of his

place in life, the inevitability of passing through certain growth stages, the finity of his existence

as a passing moment in the flow of events. The personality cannot be deprived of its reflexive

dimension. This is one of the essential privileges that distinguish man from the animals. The

animals must be given credit for knowing something, for possessing some elementary

information about the things going on around them. But unlike man, they are not aware of their

own knowledge. Man knows about the actual act of knowledge and the fact that he is the person

who knows it, that is to say, a person is aware of himself both as the subject of knowledge, the

knower, and also of what he knows. A person understands not only that he knows something but

also that he is far from knowing everything, that beyond his own knowledge there stretches a

boundless ocean of the unknown. He knows what he does not know and hence the innumerable

questions and the groping search for answers.

Can a person possess consciousness without at the same time possessing self-

consciousness? Apparently not. Both historically and ontologically the two take shape

simultaneous ly. They are something integral, although inwardly they have a qualitative

differentiation. The physiological and 135

psychological mechanisms of self-consciousness would appear to be rather more complex, more

subtle and vulnerable. Self-consciousness is not simply consciousness turned inwards. It cannot

take place directly. It is always mediated by awareness of other things outside the self. The

individual gets to know himself only to the extent that he knows the world. Thus self-

consciousness clearly has a "double image"; it consists of both the external object and the

subject himself. It is a kind of inner light that illumines both the self and the other thing. Every

thinking person understands how difficult it is to separate the object of thought and the act of

observing this thought. There are usually three aspects to a person's reflections: one's own

personality as the object, one's ego as the subject, and objective reality, which includes other

people. Self-consciousness is born when the subject of consciousness, the knower, turns into an

object for himself. At the point of emergence of self-consciousness the individual is identified with

himself. This is when man begins to be aware of his own existence in the world, of his needs and

desires, and the state of his own organism (physical comfort or discomfort, etc.). He thus

becomes able to distinguish the state of wakefulness from that of sleep. As soon as he awakes,

a person begins to experience a certain feeling of self, an awareness of his own existence in the

world. When he opens his eyes, he sees the world, hears its sounds, is aware of external objects

and his own body. He feels both his distinctness from the environment and his organic

connection with it.

Self-consciousness is not simply a matter of contemplating one's self admiringly or

otherwise. A person cannot find his bearings in the flood of events without some knowledge of

himself. He must know what he is capable of and how far his aspirations can reach.

The level of self-consciousness may be extremely varied, from a vague awareness of

one's abilities to a profound understanding of one's historic role, sacred sense of duty to one's

people and their destiny. At the higher stages of self-consciousness the individual fully

appreciates his link with world history, the history of his people, the "thread", embodied in

everything he has done, that links both the past and the future. Only rich natures possessing

refined self-consciousness are stirred as much by the future as by the present. We know that the

particularly gifted personality perceives his own self with a special kind of rational intensity, often

from the days of his youth. The knowledge of one's selfhood is felt as a kind of inward revelation.

Such intensity and ceaseless activity are particularly characteristic of the self-consciousness of

the genius, and this is linked with his vivid perception of his special social significance and

consequent great responsibility towards humanity.

Every person has moments when his self-consciousness becomes unusually acute and

moments when it subsides completely, when he is self-forgettingly immersed in some external

object. Consciousness is focussed in one area, as it were. And the opposite may also happen. A

superficial glance at what is around one and a deep immersion in oneself, sometimes with

agonising and destructive effects. For in stance, when a person is sick, he may be "up to his

neck" in his own sickness and feel that he has nothing else to live for; the whole world is seen

through the prism of his sick condition. In such cases he must have some distraction. Usually

people's self-consciousness 136

balances between the two extremes. It is difficult at one and the same time to separate and fuse

thoughts and act of observation of these thoughts in the act of thinking. When a person does not

treat himself as the object of his perceptions and thoughts—both from his own point of view and

also from that of other people—he cannot exercise self-control. One may observe substantial

individual differences in the ability to exercise self-control. Some people remain self-possessed in

the most difficult and sometimes tragic situations, while others lose their grip on themselves at

the slightest provocation. Some people even act much more effectively in conditions of danger

than in ordinary circumstances.

Every act of becoming aware of the world involves the controlling and guiding force of self-

consciousness, from which a person is not free even when he is deeply immersed in studying a

real object. The state of complete self-forgetfulness, loss of self-control and ability to direct one's

mental processes seldom occurs and usually only in cases of extreme stress or insanity. The

norm is constant self-control, at least on the general plane.

Degrees of self-consciousness may vary, from the most general momentary control over

the stream of thought directed upon external objects, to profound meditations upon oneself,

when the ego is not only the subject but also the main object of consciousness, when the

emphasis is on the inner world of mind and body.

Concentration of attention on one's self has its reasonable measure, which is dictated by

the vital necessity of preserving a stable harmony of the whole. Overconcentration of attention on

the self may cause difficulties of orientation and reduce the effectiveness of practical and

theoretical activity. It may degenerate into self-satisfied, selfishly oriented attention on one's own

cherished peculiarities. The call to know oneself implies not individual features of character, for

example, certain chance inclinations or weaknesses. It urges us to know the genuine in

ourselves, our very essence.

An important element of self-consciousness is awareness of the demands of society upon

oneself, awareness of one's social duty and purpose in life, one's responsibility for the task with

which one has been entrusted, responsibility to the community, the class, the nation, the country

and, finally, to mankind as a whole. It is self-consciousness that enables a person to view

critically his own actions, practical and theoretical, real or imaginary. It allows him to separate his

internal world from what is going on around him, to analyse it, contrast or compare it with the

external and thus study himself, arrive at judgements of himself, or perhaps even

condemnations. Self- consciousness is an essential condition of education and self-education.

One has to distinguish between trivial egocentrism, passive contemplation of one's own person,

and the profound self- consciousness with its subtle fabric of moral principles, which reveals

one's place in life and the purpose of one's activity and of one's existence in the world generally.

Egocentric reflection, introspection, which links everything with the self, as the egoist's most

cherished hub of attention, 137

hinders or even interrupts the living and beneficial process of activity. Such a person does

nothing that is of use or benefit to others or himself, for one can help oneself only through helping

others. The hypertrophy of the egoistic self-consciousness may even cause pathological health

failures and is itself one of their symptoms. On the other hand, a profound self-consciousness

implying reasonable attitudes of self-criticism clarifies the purpose of action and fills a person's

mind with a sense of being needed by others, by society, and produces a sense of true

happiness. Self-criticism is a sign of a highly developed self-consciousness. Looking back on his

life, Leo Tolstoy notes that at a very early age he began to analyse everything in his own ego and

to root out mercilessly everything he considered to be illusory or unworthy of his true purpose in

life. It often seemed to him that this habit might one day destroy the whole. But, he wrote, "I am

getting old and I still have quite a lot left that is whole and sound, more than some other

people ... people of my own age, who believed in everything when I was destroying

everything...."18 Such reasoned self-criticism, rather than a stolid smugness, preserves and

strengthens the harmonious integrity of the human personality, as it likewise strengthens that of

any social group, including the nation.

Self-consciousness takes place not only on the individual plane, as a mental form of

activity, but also at the level of social consciousness, when knowledge, scientific, artistic or

technical creativity, or political activity become a specialised object of theoretical research, when

certain social groups rise to the level of self-comprehension, of understanding their place in life,

in history, their interests and ideals, their purpose, their real possibilities and responsibility to

society and humanity. When a nation rises to such a level of self-consciousness it is capable of

miracles of heroism. For example, the Russian people had to overcome the social and

psychological consequences of the three-hundred-year Tatar-Mongol invasion of their country in

order to become aware of their strength and win the historic battle of Kulikovo. History furnishes

us with many such examples. The same thing happened to the Russian people during the

Napoleonic and the nazi invasions. Such upsurges of social self-consciousness have been

experienced by all peoples of the world, when they have had to fight against external or internal

oppressors or at times of national liberation and social revolutions. Social self-consciousness is

not homogeneous either in its social scale or in its intensity. Its turbulent waves achieve their

peak at turning points in history. It may embrace small groups of people and be the self-

consciousness of a certain political party, armed with a certain world-view, class or national self-

consciousness, or even the self-consciousness of all humankind, particularly today, when the

very existence of life on earth is placed at risk by the nuclear sword of Damocles. The theoretical

core of social self-consciousness is philosophy, which mirrors, reflects, gives meaning to and

evaluates all other forms of social consciousness and social psychology. 18 L. N. Tolstoy, Collected Works in twenty volumes, Vol. 19, Moscow, 1965, p. 275 (in Russian).

138

2. The Material and the Spiritual The brain and consciousness. The human brain is an astonishingly complex formation, a

nervous apparatus of tremendous subtlety. As a subsystem of the system of the whole organism

it regulates the organism's internal processes and relationships with the external world. By

means of the brain we see, hear and think, distinguish the ugly from the beautiful, the bad from

the good, the pleasant from the unpleasant. In other words, the brain is the vehicle of what we

call our "spiritual life". A normal mentality is impossible without normal functioning of the brain. Its

reflective and constructive ability depends on the subtlety and complexity of its organisation.

Human consciousness develops as the brain develops. An undeveloped brain results in various

forms of mental deficiency, weakness of will, etc. In old age the nerve cells of the brain begin to

atrophy, leading to senile decay, loss of memory and total confusion about the sequence of

events. The pathological disturbances of the subcortex cause hysterical fits of anger, fear, and so

on, accompanied by cries and shrieks. Structural damage to the frontal lobes of the brain renders

the victim incapable of having or retaining complex intentional ideas, or perhaps any stable

intentions. Such a person is easily distracted. He quickly loses the power of rational self-control

of his emotions, thoughts and actions. Initiative and self-discipline are also weakened and there

are breakdowns in logical thinking and in the general coordination of behaviour. Lack of

emotional restraint takes the form of explosions of laughter, outbursts of irritation and anger. And

what strange patterns of images and thought are woven by the sick imagination of the

schizophrenic! Absurd fears and overpowering manias and desires torture his clouded reason.

He may perform strange and even monstrously absurd actions, dangerous both to himself and to

society. Social, psychological, biochemical, biofield and other factors also play a part in mental

disorders. But they can disorder the mind only by causing malfunctioning of the brain. There are

no purely mental or purely physical disorders of the sections of the brain that are responsible for

the condition of a person's mentality, but there are neuropsychological changes. In short, mental

disorders are based on changes in the state of the brain, either functional or organic.

Successes in brain anatomy and also physiology, particular ly electrophysiology,

neurology, neurosurgery, neuropsychology, have shown that the brain is an extremely complex

and sophisticated system. The various forms and levels of mental activity are associated with

certain units of its elements. At the same time all units and elements of this system are

manifestations of the operation of the system as a whole, the processes of both imaginal and

logical thought being effected in the cortex, the brain's highest level. The cortex is the grey

matter, a delicate layer of convolutions on the cerebral hemispheres. Different forms of mental

activity are distributed between the two lobes. It has been proved, for instance, that in most

people the left lobe is responsible for logical thought while the right takes care of images; but in

left-handed people, the opposite is the case. The cortex consists of approximately 16,000 million

nerve cells or neurons. If strung out in line, they would form a chain 5,000 km long. Every nerve

cell by means of appendages of various length is connected and interacts (through the inter-

neuron membranes) with 139

material substratum. In other words, we are directly presented not with the physiological states of

our brain but with what they produce as subjective images of the object. A person is influenced

by certain things which evolve a storm of electrochemical, energo-informational processes of

which he has no suspicion, but as a result of which he sees things that exist outside him. This

givenness of an external object to the subject through cerebral processes is, in fact, an image

possessing the property of ideality, of subjectivity. The neurophysiological processes are, as it

were, hidden from the subject. They are not directly given to him: the ego perceives and knows

itself as thought, or feelings, and does not perceive or know itself as brain.

The separation of the ideal from the material substratum is of cardinal importance in life.

The subject's activity is guided not by the neurophysiological processes themselves, but by the

images and ideas that they convey. Actions are planned, programmed by ideal forces in unity

with material forces. And this sometimes generates the illusion that thought is a force in itself

capable of influencing the body and setting its organs in motion.

Mental activity possesses the property of ideality not only at its highest level but also at

the lower stages of its biological development, in animals. When an animal sees an object,

imagines it or dreams of it, it is given the information content of its neurophysiological cortex

processes. And this is in fact an image with the property of ideality.

We are aware of the images in our heads as things existing outside us. This power of

intentionality, objectification, reference arose as a result of evolution of the animal world and the

socio-historical practice of mankind. The fact is confirmed by observation of those who are born

blind, just after they have been given sight by a successful operation. At first they think of what

they see as being not where it actually is but as directly "in their eyes". And only later, after

practice do they learn to objectify their images correctly. The objectification of images may be

astonishingly vivid, for example, in dreams and hallucinations.

It is precisely the relatedness of cerebral processes to the objective world that makes

these processes ideal. If a thought arises in a person's head it must be a thought about

something. There can be no thoughts "about nothing". To sum up, the ideal is a special mode of existence of an object, its presentation in the world of the mind.

Dialectical materialism allows us to overcome the narrow limitations of the two approaches

to the problem of the ideal that have taken shape in the history of philosophical thought, one

elevating the ideal to primordial essence and the other ignoring the uniqueness of the ideal and

reducing it to various material phenomena. In the material world regarded as an integral whole

the ideal appears not as some special first principle but as a system of real relations between

objective phenomena 146

that are independent of consciousness and will, and living beings capable of reproducing these

phenomena and transforming them both practically and theoretically. Although derived from the

material, the ideal acquires a relative independence and becomes a stimulus of life-activity. It

arises at a high level of the organisation of living matter, acting first in the form of a sensory

image. This image serves as a necessary factor regulating behaviour in accordance with the

conditions of the organism's existence. These conditions are "idealised" in an image, which is by

no means a mere duplicate of physical or physiological processes, although without them it

cannot exist. It is thanks to the image that the act of behaviour is formed. It belongs to the subject

and is inseparable both from the life of the subject and from the object, as reflected in its other-

being.

With the rise of human society this reflection assumes a fundamentally new character

thanks to the transforming activity of human beings. By changing nature they change

themselves, becoming the subjects, creators of culture. Various forms of the ideal develop in the

system of culture and thanks to the products it creates, the instruments of labour and

communication, art, religion, science, morality, law, and so on. The sensuous fabric of

consciousness is transformed, mental images, plans and operations are created, a wealth of

values and ideals take shape. Though assimilated and created by individuals, these forms of the

ideal do not depend on individual consciousness, but they cannot exist outside the activity of a

human brain that is capable of perceiving and creating them. Arising and developing in social

practice, the ideal is not only generated by the material but is also capable of actively

transforming it. This is true both of social and historical events and of personal relationships.

The unique thing about the ideal is that it always has a material vehicle, which is not only

its substratum of nerves and brain, but also the phenomena of culture, as the embodiment of the

ideal, that have been evolved in the process of historical development. Specifically, these are

language and other semantic and symbolical systems.

Reality comes to us not directly but in ideal, "transmuted", incomplete, even illusory forms.

For example, the real relations between people in society may be comprehended according to

class interests, in inadequate ideological forms. At the level of philosophical consciousness one

of these forms is idealism, which perceives the ideal as a fundamental principle of thought, thus

absolutising the ideal, disuniting it from objective reality, the historical process, people's real

activity, and the brain as an organ of this activity.

In the first classical system of idealism created by Plato the ideal took the form of

immortal, incorporeal essences, which were the prototypes of all things and had priority over

everything material. This view determined the subsequent forms of objective idealism right up to

its contemporary versions. 147

In other idealist conceptions the ideal is identified either with that which is directly given to

the consciousness as a special substance (Descartes) or with the activity of an absolute spirit

(Hegel), or with the data of sense experience beyond which there is supposedly no reality

(subjective idealism). Inadequate notions of the ideal derived from attempts to understand its

dependence on material processes are expressed in various reductionist conceptions, which

reduce the ideal to nervous, energetic and informational processes in the brain, to biofields and

dynamic codes.

3. Consciousness and Language Communication and understanding between people, epochs and cultures. From the very

beginning human beings have been involved in social contexts of different degrees of complexity

and they remain so, because this is the setting for both their labour and leisure, even when they

think of themselves as isolated. Endless invisible threads link them with the life of the socium.

The whole essence of the human being, including his consciousness, is communicative by its

very nature. And this ability defines the essence of consciousness and also its vehicles, the

individual and society. People are constantly afloat in an atmosphere of communication. They

are eager to say something to each other, to learn or teach, to show or prove, to agree or reject,

to ask or order, console, implore, show affection, and so on. Communication arose and

developed with the rise of man and the formation of society in the process of labour. From the

very first communication was a part of labour activity and satisfied its needs. As time went on, it

was transformed into a relatively independent need to share, to pour out one's soul, either in grief

or joy, or for no particular reason, a need that recurred day after day and was of vital moral and

psychological importance to the individual. Communication is such a vital factor of existence that

without it our animal ancestors would never have become people; without the ability to

communicate a child cannot learn about, absorb culture and become a socially developed

person. The depression caused by loneliness also indicates the exceptional importance of

communication for human beings. Not for nothing is solitary confinement of criminals considered

to be one of the severest punishments by most peoples of the world. In a situation where he can

communicate a person acquires and sharpens his intellect, but in the opposite case he may even

lose his reason.

A person needs communication, whatever state of mind he may be in, joyous or sorrowful.

But grief or suffering, which need the consolation, sympathy or merely some distraction, are

particularly hard to bear alone. A person may feel lonely and isolated even among his own family

and have to make up for the lack of company with pets.

Communication is not only an essential condition of human existence; it is also a means of

forming and developing social experience and restraint, which may be felt by the individual even

outside the field of immediate communication. Even when isolated, he considers his thoughts

and actions from the standpoint of what reaction they may evoke in others. 148

Historical progress has substantially changed the means of influencing people's minds

and hearts. The speech in the forum or the senate, the conversations of the philosophers with

their pupils, the sermon preached in church, the choir singing, the disputes between the

Schoolmen, the speech of the lawyer and the public prosecutor, the professor's lecture, love

letters, written proclamations, pamphlets, stirring speeches by revolutionaries have been

replaced or supplemented by huge editions of printed works, by radio and television, the mass

media. Now the streams of information circulate by means of qualitatively different channels all

over the planet, gradually integrating the human race by means of information. A great wealth of

forms of communication are available to people through the rich language of the arts, through

songs, poetry, music, painting, stories and novels. And how infinitely rich are the forms of

unspoken, intimate communication. A psychological response or lack of it is obvious in facial

expressions, in posture, walk, gesture, voice modulations, the movements of the hands, those

extremely mobile instruments for expressing states of mind. In the whole system of "body"

language that people, particularly those with artistic natures, use with such success, the crucial

role belongs to the eyes, through which we both generate and feel the radiance of the human

spirit in all the diversity of its varying intensity and perhaps even depth. What can one read in a

face that has no eyes? Communication ensures continuity in the development of culture. Every new generation begins its work of learning from the point where the previous generation left off.

Thanks to communication the individual's thoughts and aspirations are not obliterated by

time. They become em bodied in words, in images, they survive in legend and are passed on

from century to century. Every person leans on the ancient genealogical tree. The motion of

thoughts in people's minds is like waves breaking on the shore; they have the pressure of the

whole ocean of world history behind them. Books are the present's passport to all previous

culture. In the treasure- house of their native speech, generation after generation stores up the

fruits of the deepest movements of thought and the history of events. The whole imprint of man's

intellectual life is preserved in words, in written characters, by the invention of which the human

mind resolved one of the greatest and most difficult of its problems. It embodied, it registered

speech and thus acquired the ability to make its thoughts immortal. "What is written by the pen

cannot be erased by the axe", says the folk proverb. Writing is a marvellous and inexhaustible

fountain of knowledge and wisdom, a fountain that never runs dry though it is constantly in use.

Communication goes on between specific living individuals and between epochs and also

between different cultures.

Any consideration of the problem of communication inevitably raises the question of

mutual understanding. When one talks about understanding, one usually thinks of

comprehension of real things, cognition of the world around one. But what we are concerned with

here is "communicative understanding", how people understand one another by communicating,

how the present generation 149 understands its predecessor, how the people of one culture understand other cultures. These are problems that have received little attention and yet are extremely important.

Everyone is surprised by the tricks of the conjuror, by the phenomena of telepathy, and so

on. But only a few are surprised by the "miracle" of communication, of understanding achieved

by the language of words, gesture, mimicry and various symbols, particularly understanding

between present and past, and between cultures. At the common sense level mutual

understanding through communication, the understanding of one epoch or culture by another

seems to be a mere triviality to be taken for granted. We all understand what we say and what

other people, epochs and cultures say to us. And when understanding is not achieved, we often

blame language and speak of not being able to find a common language.

Attention was drawn long ago to the big difference between understanding the objects and

processes of the external world and understanding human actions and words. To understand

human beings and what they do we have to take into consideration their motives, the

discrepancy between what they say and what they mean, we have to make allowance for the

difficulties of detecting true motivation. One of the stumbling blocks to mutual understanding is

the great diversity of individuals. Each of us contains a whole world. And this world is our

particular world. In any specific context of communication a person usually uncovers only one

aspect of himself. Understanding is further complicated by the generalised way we perceive each

other, by our tendency to fit this perception into certain accepted and evolved general standards

that ignore the unique in every individual. The individuality of people's experience and frame of

reference also makes mutual understanding more difficult. The Sophist Gorgias once remarked

that in the process of being perceived and expressed in words an object of thought disintegrates

into a huge number of elements of thought and thus loses its integrity: complete mutual

understanding is therefore, in principle, impossible. One often hears and reads, complaints about

difficulties of communication between children and parents, between epochs and between

cultures, between the healthy and the sick, particularly those who are mentally ill. A foolish

person cannot fully express the thoughts of the intelligent. From the content of what he is told he

absorbs only as much as he is able to understand. One could say that the degree of mutual

understanding between people depends to a great extent on their cultural level, their power of

insight. The history of culture offers numerous examples of how the power of genius increases

through absorbing the meaning and tendency of the epoch, through tackling and solving the

problems raised by the logic of life. Works of genius always embrace possibilities that have not

yet been revealed. And the degree to which they are understood depends on the cultural level of

the reader, the audience. As it climbs the spirals of history, humanity constantly improves the

mechanism of mutual understanding, the content of the dialogue between epochs and cultures.

Every new epoch, in acquiring more perfect ideas, also acquires new eyes and sees in the great

works of the past more and more that is new, goes deeper into their intrinsic meaning. Many of

Shakespeare's contemporaries probably regarded him as, at best, an interesting actor and little

more. They did not see in him one of the supreme geniuses that 150

humanity has produced, whose profundity has been consistently, century after century revealed by every new generation.

Intellect alone cannot give us understanding of a person, an epoch or a culture. There

must also be shared experience, the ability to empathise with other people, epochs and cultures.

Where is the guarantee that modern man fully understands the culture of the ancients, their

writings, paintings, sculpture? The mere translation of the ancient Indian writings into Russian,

for example, cannot provide it. To fully understand them one must enter into the socio-

psychological context of each work, into the life, the everyday round, the culture of the people

that created it and the historical epoch in which it was written.

The character of human relations depends to a great extent on this understanding of each

other in the process of communication. If this is adequate, the result is an unambiguous

relationship, regardless of whether that relationship is one of liking or dislike. Otherwise the

relationship is blurred.

Argument or proof is an essential element in understanding. Blank assertion cannot

understand itself or make itself understood. Another important element in mutual understanding

is the ability to listen. Not for nothing do people say that the art of listening is as important as the

art of speaking.

Understanding takes place on an incredible number of different planes due to the fact that

the whole fabric of language and any speech context are interwoven with threads of metaphor

and imagery. For the same reason there is often an illusion of understanding, as opposed to a

real understanding of what is being said. However, despite all the difficulties, mutual

communication is built on a sound foundation of mutual understanding, without which there could

be no rational contact between people, and social life would be inconceivable. The unity of language and consciousness. If we want to know more about communication

between people, epochs and cultures, we must investigate the nature of the means of

communication—language. Language is the highest form of thought expression, the basic means

of controlling behaviour, of knowing reality and knowing oneself and the existence of culture.

Without the gift of speech man could never acquire cultural values. Consciousness presupposes

speech as its material reality in the form of gesture, sound, symbol, and so on. Speech may

convey thoughts, feelings and volition in the process of mutual communication, because words

are material and can therefore be sensuously perceived. Speech is language functioning in a

specific situation of communication. It is the activity of communication and its recorded results.

Russian speech, for example, embraces an infinite number of statements by specific individuals

and all that has been written in that language. Language, on the other hand, is a specific

vocabulary and grammar, expressed in rules and sentence patterns, which have been evolved

historically and are national in 151

World always bears traces of some kind of social development. Even sensuous notions

are by no means the same in all ages. They have a certain structure according to the type of

social development that went on when they were acquired. Objects on which cognition is

concentrated are mostly the products of previous activity; they could not be understood,

considered or assimilated outside the historical context. The knowability of the world. Are there any limits to the power of human reason and hence to human power over the universe? At the dawn of its development philosophy, in effect, proclaimed the principle of the knowability of the world. But not everyone agreed with this view.

Some philosophers expressed and still express doubts as to the authenticity of human

knowledge, and prefer to remain sceptical or even completely deny the possibility of knowing the

world, thus adopting the position of agnosticism. Scepticism acknowledges the existence of an

external world and seeks a knowledge of things. But when confronted with the universal relativity

of knowledge, it is so beset by doubt that it retreats to the position of "withholding judgement".

Agnosticism is a philosophical theory that denies the possibility of man's achieving

authentic knowledge of the objective world. Some agnostics, while recognising the objective

existence of the world, deny its knowability, others regard the very fact of the world's objective,

existence as something unknowable. They maintain that knowledge is subjective by its very

nature and that we are in principle unable to reach beyond the boundaries of our own

consciousness and cannot know whether anything else except the phenomena of consciousness

exists. From the standpoint of agnosticism the question of how a thing is reflected by us differs

fundamentally from the question of how it exists in itself. A person moved by the desire for

knowledge, says, "I do not know what this is but I hope to find out". The agnostic, on the other

hand, says, "I do not know what this is and I shall never know". Most consistent and conscious

materialists defend and seek to prove the principle of the knowability of the world, but some fall

back on agnosticism. Agnosticism is closely connected with the idealist view. Some idealists

recognise the knowability of the world, which they infer from the ideal essence of things. For

example, Hegel's recognition of the knowability of the world stems directly from his principle of

the identity of being and thinking. In contrast to agnosticism, Hegel believes that the hidden

essence of the universe cannot resist the audacity of cognition; it must reveal itself and unfold its

riches and the profundity of its nature and allow knowledge to enjoy both.

The classical exponent of agnosticism is Kant, who divorced the content of consciousness

from its actual foundation. In his view a phenomenon occurs as a result of the interaction

between the "thing-in-itself" and the subject, the knower. The "phenomenon" must therefore be

considered 161

from two aspects: its relationship to the "thing-in-itself" and its relationship to the subject. Kant

maintained that when we consider an object perceived by the external senses only as a

phenomenon, we thereby acknowledge that it is based on the thing-in-itself, although we do not

know its properties. We know only that which is manifest to us. And everything that is manifest to

us is refracted through consciousness and emotions. We see everything through the prism of our

senses and our reason, and therefore cannot know essence as it is, independent of us. An

unbridgeable gap lies between the world of things-in-themselves and that of phenomena that can

be known. According to Kant, one cannot compare what is in the consciousness with what is

outside it. A person may compare only what he knows with what he knows. This implies that we

move endlessly in a world of our own consciousness and never come into contact with the actual

objects of the objective world. Hence the conclusion that it is impossible to discover anything that

does not already exist in thought. The external world, according to the agnostics, is like a

traveller. It knocks at the door of the temple of reason, awakens it to activity and then withdraws

without revealing its identity, leaving reason to guess what kind of person knocked at its door. So

we see that the source of agnosticism lies in the absolute opposition of reason to the external

world. Most characteristic of the 20th century is the agnosticism of neopositivism, which tells us that philosophy cannot provide objective knowledge but must be confined to the analysis of language.

Another source of agnosticism is relativism, that is to say, the absolutising of the

variability, the fluidity of things and consciousness. The relativists proceed from the pessimistic

principle that everything in the world is transient, that scientific truth reflects our knowledge of

objects only at a given moment; what was true yesterday is error today. Every new generation

gives its own interpretation of the cultural heritage of the past. The process of cognition is

foredoomed to a random pursuit of eternally elusive truth. Relativism works on the assumption

that the content of knowledge is not determined by the object of cognition but is constantly

transformed by the process of cognition, thus becoming subjective. Absolutising the relative in

knowledge, the relativists regard the history of science as movement from one error to another.

But if everything is relative, then this assertion, which can have meaning only in relation to the

absolute, is also relative.

Treating all human knowledge as relative and void of any particle of the absolute amounts

essentially to acknowledgement of complete arbitrariness in cognition, which then becomes a

continuous flux, in which nothing is stable or authentic and all distinctions between truth and

falsehood are erased. But if we cannot believe any of scientific propositions, we have nothing left

to guide us in life and in practice. The metaphysical thinker has a tendency to reason as follows:

if we speak of truth, it must be absolute truth, and if it is not absolute it is not truth. The relativists,

on the other hand, usually argue that the history of science records many cases when

propositions once recognised as true were later dis proved and, conversely, propositions

believed to be false eventually emerged as true in the course of the further development of

science. Admittedly, the path of scientific cognition does not proceed in a straight line; it may

often swerve in unexpected 162

directions. But this does not prove that all our knowledge is nonsense. It is not enough to assert

that scientific truths change. We must remember that this process of change moves in a certain

direction, proceeding ever deeper into the essence of things. The historical transformation of the

content of knowledge on the road to its maximum fullness is regarded by agnostics as "proof" of

its independence of the object of cognition. The relativist substitutes for the true proposition

"knowledge contains an element of the relative" the false assertion that "all human knowledge is

unreliable".

Dialectics recognises the variability of the world and the flexibility of concepts, their

"fluidity", their transmutations. But its premises are the actually existing processes of the

development of objects and their reflection in concepts; it does not absolutise the variability of

things or their reflection. It does not deny their relative stability and qualitative determinacy

Variability and stability, both in things and their reflection, form a real contradiction. Whereas

absolutising the element of stability leads to metaphysics and dogmatism, absolutising the

element of variability leads to relativism. Relativism undermines belief in scientific truth, and

when belief in truth in general collapses it brings down belief in science and even in life.

Dialectics embraces the elements of relativism, negation and scepticism but cannot be reduced

to relativism. It sees relativity not as negation of the objectivity of truth but as evidence of the fact

that cognition is historically conditioned in its approach to objective truth.

Knowledge is historically limited, but in every relative truth there is some objective content,

which is intransient. The Intransient elements of past knowledge form a part of new knowledge.

Scientific systems collapse but they do not disappear without a trace; more perfect theories are

built on top of them. One of the forms in which relativism manifests itself is conventionalism,

which maintains that the concepts of science are formally accepted postulates, and that the

question of whether they correspond to reality may be discarded as irrelevant to science. The history of science is the history of omnipotent cognition, which renounces both the absolutising of achieved scientific truths and their sceptical denial.

Agnostics also resort to the following arguments. One cannot know the parts without

knowing the whole. The whole is infinite and, as such, unknowable. Therefore its parts are also

unknowable. Pascal, for example, believed that man would understand the life of his body only

when he had studied everything it needed, and for this man would have to study the whole

universe. But the universe was infinite and could not be known. Empiricists have always

maintained that we can know only the finite and that the infinite is unknowable. But by getting to

know the finite, the transient, we in so doing begin to know the infinite. The knowability of the world does indeed imply a profound paradox. The world, the universe is boundless and inexhaustible and our knowledge of it at every given level of the development of 163 capable of discovering in an object properties and relations that in perspective offer the opportunity of its far more diversified practical use.

After setting up its logical basis, scientific theory acquires a capacity for self-development

and reproduction of properties and relations of things that are not yet within the scope of practice

and sensuous cognition, or that will be there only in the future. The development of science at

any given period depends on the thought material inherited from past genera tions, from

theoretical problems that have already been stated. Scientific development has a relative

independence thanks to the necessity, based on the needs of cognition itself, to systematise

knowledge, to break down its branches into various interacting disciplines, thanks to need for

intellectual intercourse and free exchange of opinion. Many discoveries were not directly

triggered by practice and only later became the source of new practice, i.e., the discovery of X-

rays, radioactivity, and so on. The general theory of relativity arose not thanks to certain hitherto

unknown experiments, which threw new light on the essence of gravity, but by means of purely

theoretical analysis of the system of knowledge that had already taken shape in physics. The

predicted experimental proofs only appeared at a later stage.

Discoveries arise partially as a result of the solution of internal contradictions in a scientific

theory itself, and appear before the practical demand for them is consciously appreciated.

Sometimes a new need arises under the influence of this or that discovery or invention. But quite

often the opposite is the case. Despite the intense practical needs of society, science cannot

come up with the answer and the need remains unsatisfied. At each stage in the development of

society practice has to make do with the level of theory that has been achieved, no matter how

poor it may be. The ideal incentives to knowledge. What is it that drives people into the jungles of the

unknown? The search for knowledge does not depend on practice. It is the result of the mind's

inner urge to seek truth. The scientist studies nature not only because his studies yield useful

results, but also because they give him satisfaction.

Material incentives play a by no means inconsiderable role in the development of science;

but moral stimuli, ideal incentives, play an even greater role. Such incentives include the desire

to make people's work easier, to enlighten, to reorganise social relations in the public interest, to

delight in the process of creativity, to win fame, and so on. The awareness of one's duty to

society and the desire to serve the interests of humanity have stimulated the creative work of

many scientists. The work of Marx onCapital provides an impressive example. In one of his

letters he wrote: ". . .Well, why didn't I answer you? Because I was constantly hovering at the

edge of the grave. Hence I had to make use ofevery moment when I was able to work to

complete my book, to which I have sacrificed health, happiness and family. I trust that I need not

add anything to this explanation. I laugh at the so-called 'practical' men with their wisdom. If one

chose to be an ox, one could, of 170

course, turn one's back on the sufferings of mankind and look after one's own skin. But I should

have really regarded myself asimpractical, if I had pegged out without completely finishing my

book, at least in manuscript."22

A scientist may indeed be carried away by the adventure of exploring the unknown. The

joy he derives from creative work, when successful, is that he sees the most deeply hidden

secrets of the world unfolding before him. He sees the mysteries of the origin of the universe

revealed. He sees his own reason discovering purpose and order where those before him were

unable to perceive anything but chaos. This feeling may be described as philosophical delight.

And these incentives to creativity do indeed play a massive role; but it would be wrong to

absolutise them.

Ideal incentives are not prime movers, they are derivative. They have an objective basis

and express the real needs of society. Even a scientist of genius is the child of his age, whose

needs ultimately determine the character of his activities. But in the course of humanity's

historical development cognition becomes a relatively independent need, an insatiable thirst for

knowledge, a curiousity that amounts to a totally unselfish interest in creativity.

Knowledge begins with wonder. He who is not surprised at anything discovers only the

fact that he has lost the ability to think creatively. For the real researcher, discovery of something

surprising is always a happy event and a fresh stimulus to work. The most wonderful thing of all

is that we are able to experience the mystery of the unknown. A true scientist is irresistibly

attracted by the sheer beauty of a logical scientific theory, by the amazing ingenuity of

experimental techniques and solutions to the brain-teasing riddles of nature, society, and thought

itself. "Even the most dispassionate scientist is at the same time a human being; he would like to

be right, to see his intuition confirmed; he would like to make a name for himself, to be a

success. Such hopes are motives for his work, just as is the thirst for knowledge."23

The all-absorbing urge for knowledge is one of the thinking person's deepest needs. It is

like a demon, it pounces on the scientist and forces him to make desperate efforts in search of

truth. Driven on by this demon, people store up knowledge and create works of art with no regard

at all for practical goals and considerations. Most of us have read the biographies of such truth-

seekers and know what their fate usually was. In upholding truth they risked their reputation, they

were persecuted, accused of charlatanism. Many died in poverty. It has been truly said that he

cannot become an apostle of truth who lacks the courage to be its martyr. The history of science abounds in the spirit of selfless questing. Pioneers of science! For them the search for truth was the meaning of their whole conscious life. They made us wiser and more 22 Karl Marx, "Letter to Sigfried Meyer in New York", Selected Correspondence, Progress Publishers. Moscow, 1975. p. 173. 23 Marx Born, My Life and My Views, p. 190. 171 enlightened. They were martyrs in the name of humanity, crucified for our sake, so that we might rise a little higher. We should remember them with gratitude.

3. What Is Truth? Truth, error and faith. Any idea, no matter how far-fetched, contains some objective content.

Then are mermaids, witches and devils images of truth? The metaphysically-minded materialists,

who interpret reflection one-sidedly, deny that there is any reflection of reality in error. Religious

conscious ness, for example, is regarded as completely void of any objective content. But the

history of humanity's search for knowledge shows that error does reflect, admittedly one sidedly,

objective reality, that it has its source in reality, has an "earthly" foundation. There is not and

cannot be any absolute error which reflects absolutely nothing. Even the delirium of the insane is

a reflection of something. In all the above cases there are threads of objective reality, woven into

fantastic patterns by the force of imagination. Taken in their entirety, these images do not add up

to something true. Far from every phenomenon of consciousness possesses the same degree of

veracity. But humankind lives and progresses not because its consciousness is cluttered with

error, blind faith and falsehood, but because that consciousness also contains true knowledge. If

cognition had not been, from the very beginning, a more or less accurate reflection of reality,

man would never have been able to transform his environment creatively or even to adapt

himself to it. The very fact of man's existence, the history of science and practice prove the truth

of this assertion. This is not to say, of course, that human knowledge is not prone to error. In

acquiring the ability to think abstractly and imagine productively, which has taken us far beyond

the confines of what is given by the senses, people have earned the privilege of making mistakes

and being carried away by all kinds of nonsense.

Animals are incapable of abstract thought but they do not make the same mistakes as

man, who has evolved a whole world of fantastic, fairy-tale images, unbelievably bizzare,

gorgeously beautiful or hideously grotesque.

Error is an idea or a combination of ideas and images that arise in the mind of the

individual or society and do not correspond to reality but are regarded as true. This definition of

error follows logically from that of cognition as the reflection of reality. Error is honest untruth.

Unlike error, falsehood or deception is dishonest untruth. A person knows that a certain idea is

untrue but for some reason or other he presents it as true. The person who makes a mistake

leads others into error because he himself has erred. The liar, on the other hand, while deceiving

others, is not himself deceived. Falsehood speaks of something that exists as non-existent and

of the non-existent as existing. But truth has a force that the lie lacks: the latter is usually

exposed in the long run. Someone has said that a lie is rather like spitting against the wind; the

spit is bound to fly in the liar's face. Error should be distinguished from the mistake that is the

result of incorrect practical or mental activiity, evoked by purely accidental, personal causes. It is

commonly believed that errors 172

are annoying accidents. But they have relentlessly pursued knowledge throughout history, they

are a kind of penalty that humanity has to pay for its daring attempts to know more than is

permitted by the level of practice and the scope of theoretical thought. The ancients saw the

source of error either in the natural imperfection of our cognitive abilities, in the limitations of

sensuous and rational knowledge, in lack of education, or a combination of all these factors.

The philosophy of modern times sometimes regards error as the distorting influence of

emotion or will on human reason. Error is rooted in the social conditions of man's existence and

in the nature of his mind, which may be compared to a mirror with an uneven surface that

mingles its own imperfection with the image of the thing reflected. Thinkers have seen the source

of error in free will and insufficient knowledge. According to Kant, the source of error lies in the

fundamentally unjustifiable emergence of human consciousness beyond the bounds of possible

personal experience in·to the objective world for itself, or in violation of the logical rules of

thought.

Error is a historically conditioned, and therefore constantly overcome, discrepancy

between knowledge and the object of knowledge. It expresses theoretically the limitedness of

people's actual power over nature and their own relations, and results from the constant urge to

overcome the limitations of existing knowledge and practice. Truth is a complex, contradictory

process in which error is constantly overcome through the development of knowledge, while truth

itself becomes increasingly complete and profound. People themselves are to blame for their

errors, although the latter are by no means an inherent, immanent feature of human nature, but

only a transient possibility realised on the basis of certain historical conditions.

By its very nature scientific cognition is impossible without a clash of different views, a

struggle of beliefs, without discussion; it is therefore impossible without error. Only those who do

nothing or who constantly repeat platitudes make no mistakes. Numerous opinions may be

advanced on a certain question and quite often not one of them is correct. Every scientific

discovery usually entails numerous errors, which are stages in the development of truth, as

illustrated by the common expression "learning from one's mistakes". If the doors are locked to

error, truth cannot enter the mind either. This is not to say, however, that one should look

pessimistically on cognition as an endless groping among figments of the imagination. Errors are

removed or gradually overcome, and truth, though sometimes badly wounded, fights its way

through to the light. "One may have the desire not to burden oneself with the negative as

something false, one may demand to be brought at once to the truth. Why should one become

involved with what is false?... This notion is one of the biggest obstacles to truth.... Truth is not a

stamped coin which can be supplied ready- made...."24 24 Georg Wilhelm Friedrich Hegel's Werke. Vollständige Ausgabe. Zweiter Band. Phänomenologie des Geistes, Berlin, 1832, Verlag von Duncker und Humblot, S. 30. 173

How many cases have there been in science when under certain conditions error proved

to be truth and truth error! Even legends and fairy-tales come true in the course of time. For

example, when the ancients began to describe atoms they made a tremendous discovery and at

the same time became victims of error. They called particles of matter atoms because they

considered them to be indivisible. They were right and wrong at the same time. Humanity has

achieved its present level of culture not because of error but despite it. Attainment of truth is the

prime task of science. Truth is the true reflection of reality in the consciousness, the reflection of reality as it exists for itself, independently of the will and consciousness of people.

Closely connected with truth and error is the concept of faith, which ordinary

consciousness often associates with the meaning it has been given in religion. In the broad

philosophic al sense faith should be understood as an individual's profound conviction of the

correctness of his actions, thoughts or ideals. And this conviction may have a generic or a

derivative character. As something generic, faith may be just blind everyday superstition or it may

simply be a confidence in science, scientists and so on. As something derivative, faith is

scientifically grounded, authentic knowledge and in this sense it is based on truth. Faith may be

true, but this principle is not reversible.

The concept of truth is linked with the moral concepts of honesty and sincerity. Truth is the

aim of science and honesty is the ideal of moral motivation. Fruitful studies in science and

philosophy are impossible where fear of the consequences of thinking is stronger than the love of

truth. Truth is authenticated knowledge and knowledge is strength, the greatest strength of all. It

cannot be destroyed by prisons, penal servitude, the gallows, the guillotine, or the stake. The

burning bush of truth will never burn out. Giordano Bruno died at the stake in the Campo dei Fiori

in Rome as a martyr to scientific truth. His body perished in the flames but truth remained, it was

indestructible. Although the great majority, misled by all kinds of false arguments, may be against

it, truth is bound sooner or later to win through. An ardent and selfless love of truth is often to be

found in individuals who are richly endowed morally as well as intellectually. The objective content of true knowledge. All truth is objective: its content does not depend on

the subject, his intentions or will. A correct answer to the question, "What is truth?" presupposes

recognition of the fact that outside our consciousness there exists an infinite world developing

according to objective laws. Truth is the accurate reflection of the object in the consciousness of

the subject. Authenticity is the mode of existence of truth.

Since it is the correct reflection of the object, truth always has objective content. If we

conceive ideas that have no correspondence in reality, it is clear that these concepts have

nothing to do with truth and cannot therefore stand up to the test of practice. 174

Any truth is objective. There is no such thing as unobjective truth. Subjective truth is

merely an individual's opinion. So the definition that we have given of truth is at the same time a

definition of objective truth. Truth is not reality itself but the objective content of the results of

cognition. Its content does not depend on the will, desire, passion or imagination of human

beings. Only objective knowledge corresponding to the essence of things themselves allows the

individual and society to control natural and social processes; one can control the forces of

nature and society only by obeying their objective laws. Can there be several true statements about one and the same phenomenon in one and the same relation? There may be many opinions but there can be only one truth! Truth as a process. The relativity of truth. The principle of correspondence. The statement

that the world is knowable does not mean that an object is revealed to the subject, the knower, at

once in all its attributes and relations. Our life is not a placid existence in the lap of truth but a

restless and constant search for its acquisition. Science is not a stockpile of ready-made and all-

embracing verities but a process of finding them, of moving from limited, approximate knowledge

to knowledge that becomes ever more embracing, profound and precise. This process has no

limit. The ideas of finite and immutable truth are illusions that have nothing to do with true

science. The mental vision of the scientist is always an incomplete picture. Some things are well

known and have become trivial, others are not quite comprehensible, others doubtful, others

insufficiently proven, others contradict new facts, and others are entirely problematic.

When we try to understand a certain object, we have to reckon with its inexhaustibility and

tendency to change. Every object has a vast number of properties and enters into countless

relations with other objects. It would take a very long time to know these properties and relations.

In the history of science we find many cases when scientists agreed that all the properties of an

object had been established, only to discover later that it had other properties besides. Water, for

instance, was considered to have been studied inside out. But science then discovered

something called "heavy water", with properties hitherto unsuspected. Recent research has

shown that a number of the peculiarities and states of water depend on the influence of outer

space. And the problem of the distribution, role and specific properties of water in the universe

still awaits a satisfactory solution. As proven knowledge increases, the circle of probable knowledge also expands. We are still able to grasp only a little of the boundless mystery-story of existence.

Truth is relative inasmuch as it reflects an object not exhaustively but within certain limits,

certain relations, which are constantly changing. Relative truth is limited true know ledge about

something. 175

cerebral substratum and the physiological mechanisms of thought), by psychopathology (various

forms of mental disorder), by ethology (the preconditions and features of the development of

thought in the animal world), by psychology (thought examined as a cognitive process connected

with certain individual features of the personality, with the influence of emotion on thought), and

so on. Innate intelligence differing according to a person's natural gifts develops into the actual

ability to think in the process of ontogenesis under the influence of education and training.

The question of the essential nature of thought, its relations to the material world, of the

human being as the subject of thought, of the logic of thinking, and of the constructive, creative

nature of thought, has always been the central problem of philosophy throughout the history of its

develop ment.

The biological substratum of thought is the high level of development of the human brain,

which took shape historically in the process of the development of man, of human society and

culture.

A human being becomes a thinker only by obtaining command of language, logic and

historically accumulated culture. By assimilating culture he learns to construct hypotheses, to test

them theoretically and experimentally by means of thinking operations, and to forecast future

events.

Knowledge of thought as a special form of cognitive activity came into being in the

framework of philosophy and led to the separation of thought as such from intellectual processes

taken as a whole. At the very dawn of Oriental and ancient Greek philosophy thought was

separated from sensuous knowledge, and thought itself made distinctions between its unreliable

manifestations ("opinion" as a manifestation of ordinary consciousness) and the discovery of

universal laws that did not depend on individual, human subjectivity (Parmenides, Heraclitus).

The idea that the actual atomic structure of things could be discovered only by means of thought

was upheld by Democritus. The philosophy of the "teachers of wisdom", the Sophists, shifted the

emphasis to analysis of the linguistic and logical means of thought as something derived from

individual human qualities (Protagoras). Considering these means without reference to the

objective content of thought, the Sophists arrived at relativ ism, which was criticised by Socrates,

whose watchword, "Know thyself", required that thought be "purged" of all vague and

indeterminate notions in the name of sound and reliable knowledge. Such knowledge, according

to Socrates, could be obtained in a dialogue between people who were all seeking truth. In this

way a direct link was found between thought and communication and the dialogical nature of

thought was discovered. Plato, a pupil of Socrates, decided that the main attribute of thought was

its ideality, a special, non- sensuous form of reality, which constituted the essence of thought as

distinct from the world of sensuous things. This form was elevated by Plato into a specific entity

that could not be related to anything material and, moreover, was primary in relation to the

material. Generalising the 184

experience of Greek philosophy, Aristotle created his theory of the forms and structures of

thought, thus laying the foundation of formal logic. He also showed the dialectics of the transition

from sensation to thought, thus revealing the important role in thought processes of the images

of representation ("imagination") as the connecting link between the sensuous and the rational.

In contrast to idealism, certain materialist theories arose even in ancient times. These

theories (Epicurus, Lucretius) regarded the ideal content of thought (ideas, concepts,

judgements) as being derived from matter, as recording external stimuli. All further theories of

thought are permeated with the struggle between these two philosophical approaches.

The scientific revolution of the 17th century led to the rise of empiricism, which gave

priority to experience and induction (Bacon and Locke) and also of rationalism, a doctrine which

regards abstract thought as the basis of human knowledge and gives priority to the deductive

method, i.e., to deduction of particular propositions from general principles (Descartes, Spinoza,

Leibnitz).

The advances of natural science in the 18th century led to a theory that thought was a

function of the brain, a product of external natural stimuli and the social environment. Consider

ation was also accorded to the problems of the development of thought (Diderot) and of

individual differences in thought capacity (Helvetius). At the end of the 18th and beginning of the

19th century the systems of classical German idealism (Kant and Hegel) developed the theory

that the forms and modes of thought were creative, dialectical, and that individual thought

depended on its historical premises. The next period in the history of philosophical theories of

thought is dominated by positivism, which denies universal laws of the development of nature,

society, and thought, and restricts the function of theoretical thought to establishing facts and

empirically observed connections between them. In various new versions (e.g., neopositivism),

the positivist approach to thought is typical of contemporary bourgeois philosophy.

In Western philosophy positivism is opposed by the intuitivist (Bergson),

phenomenological (Husserl) and existential (Jaspers, Sartre, Heidegger) concepts of thought,

which regard thought as the contemplation of spiritual essences (phenomenology) or deny all

human ability to rationally comprehend the objective world (intuitivism and irrationalism).

Psychological research into the nature of thought in the 19th century was based on the

principles of formal logic and the doctrine of association. It did little more than identify and

describe certain thought processes such as abstraction, generalisation, comparison and

classification. The main element in thought was considered to be the concept, the nature of

which was discussed in terms of formal logic, while thought itself was regarded as being

produced by the mechanical summation of sense images or representations, the identification of

their general attributes and the elimination of those which did not conform to the general. The

process of thought itself was presented as the complex associative combination of

representations and concepts in 185

obedience to the laws of formal logic. The concept was equated with the representation and

interpreted as a set of attributes connected by association; a judgement was regarded as the

association of representations; an inference as the association of two judgements serving as

premises with a third deduced from it as the conclusion (syllogism). This conception provided no

explanation for the most essential features of thought, namely its goal-oriented and creative

character.

With the development of experimental psychology thought became the target of empirical

laboratory research. The naturalistic and mechanistic notions of thought were suggested by the

behaviourists. Watson, for example, studied the reactions of animals in problematic situations

and regarded thought as a form of behaviour consisting of stimuli and motor responses to them.

A new rational feature of this theory was the objective approach to thought in contrast to its being

regarded as an incorporeal essence, but the mechanistic method prevented the development of

a scientific theory of thought, which was ultimately reduced, at the level of human behaviour, to

speech reactions formed on the basis of trial and error.

The study of thought led to the discovery that it was conditioned by the social environment

and also to discovery of the important role played in its regulation by non-sensory, imageless

elements. It was established that thought could not be reduced to the visual-image content of the

consciousness. In contrast to the "pure" sensuousness of the associative psychology thought

was treated as being "purely" a systematised activity directed at a definite object.

The Gestalt psychologists understood thought as the process of transforming the structure

of consciousness in its immediate givenness. They assumed that consciousness was a kind of

field whose intensity was increased by any situation that had become a problem for the thinker.

The process of thought itself was the relieving of this intensity by transforming the "field of

consciousness", by moving from one structure to another. By interpreting thought as a self-

generating process, the Gestalt psychologists associated them selves with intuitivism, a theory

that denies the determining significance of rational analysis in solving problems.

The beginning of the 20th century saw the appearance of works (by Lévy-Bruhl and

others) which generalised and systematised the accumulated data on the thinking of peoples

who were at a relatively lower level of socio-economic and cultural development. These works

helped to establish the principle of historism in thought research, exploded the proposition that

certain structures of thought were invariable, and introduced the idea that thought could change

qualitative ly in the process of its development and historical advance. The new genetic approach

to thought, which goes back to Charles Darwin, emerged thanks to the successes of

experimental research on the behaviour of animals with highly developed brains, particularly

apes. This research showed that even animals have the rudiments of thought (analysis,

synthesis, the ability to solve situational problems, etc.). Two tendencies emerged in the

interpretation of the results of these experiments. One identified intellectual operations of man

and those of the higher animals, and the other showed

186

the qualitative difference in their thinking, while admitting the continuity between them. Animal

thought was characterised as immediate and active. Coupled with the investigation of immediate

and active thought in children this helped to overcome notions of thought as a process

contrasted to the actual behaviour of the organism. Investigation of thought activity in the form of

external actions in complicated situations, and of operations with diagrams, models, and so on,

destroyed the obsolete notion of thought as something purely internal, as a purely verbal and

logical process, and led to recognition of the existence in the human beings of various forms and

levels of highly developed thinking that were closely interwoven and could pass into one another.

Genetic analysis of thought and the notion of a close relation between logical thought

operations and practical actions were made more profound by the investigations of the Swiss

psychologist Jean Piaget, who showed that there were definite, law-governed, successive stages

in the development of thought from childhood to the age of adolescence.

The peculiarities of thought connected with professional activities in science, technology,

art and other spheres of social life were subjected to specialised psychological analysis. One

variety of professional thinking is the mental activity pursued in the field of politics, "political

thought", which presupposes certain specific forms of analysis and synthesis connected with the

politician's need to relate the general picture of international and home affairs to a process he

considers particularly important, and to take a quick and timely decision, proceeding from the

unity of the components of his experience both known and unknown, logical and intuitive.

This raises the problem of the "style" of thought and its specific nature at various levels in

the historical development of society. One particular style of thought is dogmatism, which

operates with ossified concepts and ignores the principle of the concreteness of truth. The

characteristic thing about dogmatic thought is a blind obstinacy. Disregarding all other

considerations, the dogmatist, having once taken a decision or absorbed an idea, regards it as

incontrovertible under any circumstances. He ignores the element of the relative in knowledge

and tends to absolutise everything. Such thinking is inhibited by the very dogma on which it is

based. Accepted techniques and methods of thought, old truths tend to repeat themselves and,

when using them, people feel they are protected from the danger of mistakes. This kind of

thinking sees nothing in the surrounding world but what it knows from the books, instructions,

precepts and statements of a real or imagined authority. Dogmatic thought suffers from a great

inertia, taking cover behind platitudes, no matter how patently obsolete. In his day Francis Bacon

fought against scholasticism with its blind faith in authority and dogmatic style of thought. Soviet

psychologists pay considerable attention to the problem-solving and critical capacity of thought,

its creative character and the formation of mental techniques in the process of developing

education, and also to the process of transforming external practical actions into internal, mental

ones, particularly in reference to programmed learning. Basing themselves on the theory of

Sechenov, with its genetic, reflectory and objective approach to the structure and mechanism of

thought, and also that of Pavlov on the analytico-synthetic activity 187

of the cortex, Soviet psychologists carry detailed studies of the principle of reflection,

determinacy and the genetic approach, the inseparable connection between external-objective

and internal- subjective manifestations of thought; the principles and problems of the theory of

medicine have been further developed on the basis of these studies. The unity between

theoretical principles and practical skills in the doctor's professional activity appears in the

unusual form of so-called clinical thought. By this we usually mean the combination of conscious

and unconscious intellectual operations by means of which the doctor recreates an integral

picture of a disease and, on this basis, predicts its course and probable outcome, and arrives at

a rapid decision on the measures needed to influence the patient's organism and the personality

taken as a whole. Clinical thought is related to the doctor's ability to comprehend a disease not

on a local basis but integrally, taking into account the unique features of its manifestation in each

specific case. Clinical thought is not limited to the process of making a diagnosis and certain

predictions, and it achieves success in cases when it helps the doctor to get a correct orientation

among the whole diversity of separate interacting components (symptoms) in the highly complex

system presented by the patient's organism. To be effective clinical thought should be integral,

i.e., be able to unite a great number of approaches—etiological, pathophysiological, therapeutic,

psychological, personal, and so on.

Clinical thought involves a detailed, differentiated and comparative analysis of complex

disease symptoms. Since the exponent of clinical thought is an individual doctor with a specific

social and moral responsibility, the effectiveness of his thought depends in some degree on his

awareness of his specific professional role. Clinical thought should be regarded as the conscious

or unconscious application of the dialectical systems method to the theory and practice of

medicine. Its successful application in practical activity presupposes that the doctor has certain

psychological qualities, such as skill in relating theoretical knowledge to each specific clinical

case, with all unique features. Clinical thought develops in a doctor in the process of his

accumulation of medical practice, but also presupposes a special gift of quick orientation and an

ability to combine the logical and the intuitive.

By treating thought as a product of socio-historical development, as the highest form of

active reflection and creativity, dialectical materialism has revealed the initial connection between

thought and human practical activity. "The production of ideas, of conceptions, of consciousness

is at first directly interwoven with the material activity..; Conceiving, thinking, the mental

intercourse of men at this stage still appear as the direct efflux of their material behaviour".25 The

results of man's cognitive and practical activity, fixed in linguistic forms, are passed on by means

of the processes of speech communication from one generation to another and become part of a

system of knowledge, the subject of which is society. In the integral process of thought its

linguistic means, which acquire a certain relative independence of practical activity, create

conditions for the transition from separate stages of external-objective cognitive activity to the

internal speech plane of 25 Karl Marx, Frederick Engels, "The German Ideology", Collected Works, Vol. 5, Progress Publishers, Moscow, 1976, p. 36. 188 conditions in which the target of our research is located and distinguish the most important, essential properties, connections, and tendencies that determine its other aspects. Analogy. In the literal sense this word means correspondence, that is to say, an objective relationship between objects that makes it possible to apply the information gained through investigating one object to another object that is similar in certain respects.

Analogy, which links the threads of the unknown with the known, lies at the very heart of

our understanding of facts. The new can be understood only through the images and concepts of

the old, of what is known. The first aeroplanes were invented by analogy with the behaviour of

other, objects in flight, such as birds or kites.

An analogy is a similarity, a probable conclusion about a resemblance between two

objects on the basis of a re semblance established in other respects. This conclusion, moreover,

is more likely to be true, more heuristic and convincing, the more similar attributes we find in the

objects under comparison and the more essential these attributes are. The application of analogy

may lead to erroneous conclusions. Hence the aphorism: the principle of analogy is a technique

of cognition that limps on both legs. For example, when comparing the Earth and Moon, Kant

found a number of attributes that were common to these celestial bodies and drew the

conclusion that the Moon must be inhabited. Analogy with something that is already known helps

us to understand what is not known. Analogy with that which is relatively simple helps us to

understand that which is more complex. For example, by analogy with the techniques of artificial

selection used to produce the best breeds of domestic animals Charles Darwin arrived at the law

of natural selection in the animal and vegetable world. Analogy with the flow of liquid in a pipe

played an important role in the evolution of the theory of the electric current. Observation of the

workings of the brain has provided an important heuristic technique for inventing logical

machines, computers and so on. The most developed field where the method of analogy is often

used is the so-called similarity theory, which is widely used in modelling. Modelling. A characteristic feature of modern scientific cognition is the enhanced role of the

method of modelling, which is used with great effect in the technical, natural, and social sciences.

Modelling is the practical or theoretical replacement of the object of research by some natural or

artificial analogue whose investigation helps us to understand the essence of the original object.

For example, by examining the properties of a model aeroplane we get a better understanding of

the properties of the real thing. Modelling is based primarily on the principle of reflection, on similarity, analogy, on different objects having certain properties in common, and on the relative independence of form. 196

One starts out to build a theory of modelling by defining the concept "model", which is

often identified with theory, hypothesis, image. The model is a materially realised or mentally

represented system that replaces the object we wish to know or construct. The model and the

original are in a relation of similarity (isomorphism), of analogy, or physical resemblance, as, for

example, the model of a gas in the form of elastic balls, the model of an electric current in the

form of a liquid flowing along pipes, the "conductors". Any object that reproduces the required

features of the original may be a model.

If a model has a physical nature identical to that of the original, we are concerned with

physical modelling. When a model is described by the same system of equations as the object

itself, such modelling is called mathematical modelling. If certain aspects of modelled objects are

represented by a formalised system of symbols, which is then studied in order to transfer the

acquired information to the modelled object itself, we are concerned with logic-sign modelling.

Cybernetic modelling is functional in character. The model and the original may be different in

their substratum, their energy processes and internal causal mechanisms, but they resemble

each other in their behaviour.

Modelling inevitably involves a certain simplification of the object that is modelled. At the

same time it plays an enormous heuristic role. Modelling is so widely used because it enables us

to carry out research into processes characteristic of the original without having the original

actually to hand. Formalisation. The advances of modern science have brought profound changes in the

methods of scientific cognition. One of the most important is the method of formalisation—

generalisation of the forms of processes that differ in content, abstraction of these forms from

their content. Here the form is regarded as a relatively independent object of research. It is

sometimes thought that formalisation is connected only with mathematics, with mathematical

logic and cybernetics. This is incorrect. Formalisation permeates all kinds of practical and

theoretical activity and differs only in degree or level. Historically it arose at the same time as

language. Certain techniques of labour activity, certain skills emerged, were generalised,

described and passed on from generation to generation in a form divorced from the concrete

actions, objects and means of labour. Our ordinary everyday language expresses the weakest

level of formalisation. Its other extreme is mathematics, and mathematical logic, which studies

the form of a process of reasoning by abstracting from the content. Here formalisation strips

thought to the bare bones and leaves only the skeleton of its structure. Any book or article on

physics, chemistry, astronomy, impresses the non-specialist by the abundance of its

mathematical and other symbols and formulas and at the same time by the amazing

compactness of its descriptions of natural phenomena in ordinary language. 197

When we formalise a line of reasoning, we abstract from the qualitative characteristics of

objects and discover the logical form of the statements containing assertions about these

objects. The syllogism, the line of reasoning is then transferred from the plane of considering the

connections between objects in thought to the plane of operation with statements on the basis of

the formal relations between them. The use of special symbols enables us to eliminate the

ambiguity of the words used in everyday language. In formalised reasoning every symbol is

strictly univalued, unambiguous. Symbols also allow us to record briefly and economically

expressions which in ordinary language are clumsy and often difficult to understand. The main

advantage of the language of formulas is not so much its brevity and compactness, as its

freedom from ambiguity. The word "water" has more than one meaning but the formlua H20 has

only one. The use of symbols makes it easier to draw logical conclusions from premises, to test

the veracity of hypotheses, to prove scientific statements, and so on.

Despite its enormous importance for modern technology, formalisation has certain intrinsic

limits to its sphere of application. It has been proved that there is no universal method that would

allow us to replace all reasoning by computation. Only a very meagre content can be completely

formalised. Formalisation can deal with only a little bit of ever changing life, taken one-sidedly,

within the limits of its relative stability. Formalisation, as we have defined it, cannot be used for

describing facts, which is an essential element in any scientific research. Scientific wisdom tells

us that we should never be in a hurry to formalise when the subject-matter, the essence of the

case is still not clear.

With the growing influence of abstraction and symbolism in the advance of knowledge, the

problem of interpretation becomes increasingly acute. Just as abstraction becomes meaningless

without concretisation, so formalisation ultimate ly proves sterile without interpretation. Whereas

formalisation is the process of the motion of thought from the content of the object to its abstract

form, interpretation is the converse, logically opposite process. A formal system is built on the

basis of meaning and, once it is built, again returns to the sphere of meaningful relations.

Abstraction from content is only a temporary process. The reverse process may be fairly often

observed in modern science. At first certain abstract mathematical equations are evolved and

studied, a formal system is devised, and then applied concretely. Historical and logical methods. From the two main aspects of objective process of cognition

we draw two methods, the historical and logical. The logical method is used to express the

general line, the pattern of development of an object, the development of society from one social

formation to another, for example. The historical method is used to describe a concrete

manifestation of a given pattern or law in all the infinite diversity of its specific and individual

manifestations. In relation to society, for example, this is the real history of all countries and

peoples with all their unique, individual destinies. 198

The logical is a generalised reflection of the historical: it reflects reality in its law-governed

development and explains the necessity of this development. The logical is the historical,

liberated from the principles of chronology, from its accidental and unique form. For example,

when applied to the history of any science, the logical method of research presupposes a

generalisation of the historical process, its stripping of all the transient, accidental turns or

zigzags evoked by various, often external, relative factors, such as the zigzags of thought of a

particular scholar, changes in historical circumstances, and so on.

The logical method of research into the actual historical process is thus a matter of

abstracting from the real historical process its intrinsic necessity and analysing that necessity in a

logically "purified" form. The empirical and the theoretical in thought. Observation, experiment, description.The

motion of cognitive thought begins with the empirical, with the observation and establish ing of

facts, their analysis and classification, and goes on from there to their generalisation, the making

of hypotheses, the testing of these hypotheses and, finally, the construction of theories.

Observation is an intentional, planned process of perception, carried out in order to identify the

essential properties and relations in the object of cognition. Observa tion may be direct or

indirect, mediated by various technical devices (molecules, for example, are now visually

observed by means of electronic microscopes). Observation acquires scientific significance when

it allows us on the basis of a research programme to present objects with maximum precision

and may be repeated several times in conditions that we deliberately vary. The important thing is

to select the most representative group of facts. Hence the importance of the researcher's

intention, the system of methods he adopts and his interpretation of results and their control.

The success of observation depends on how well it has been prepared, on the setting of

its targets, the demands that it should fulfil and the preliminary drawing up of a plan and method

of observation. This indicates its close connection with thought. Observation registers what is

given by nature itself. But it is in the nature of man not merely to observe but also to experiment.

The experiment is a method of research by which the object is artificially reproduced or

placed in certain conditions that answer the needs of the researcher. The history of scientific

thought, particularly natural science, abounds in examples of brilliant experiments that have

allowed us to examine, to have a glimpse into the most profound secrets of nature. By means of

experiment Faraday discovered magnetic induction, Lebedev discovered the pressure of light,

and so on.The method of varying the conditions in which the object of research is usually found

is the basic method of experiment. This allows us to uncover the causal connection between its conditions of existence and its properties, and also the changes that take place in these properties as we change 199

the conditions, thus revealing new properties that could not be observed in natural conditions.

For example, in laboratories of artificial climate one can more or less precisely determine the

influence of temperature, light, humidity, etc., on the growth and development of plants. Because

certain properties of an object change (or emerge anew) as conditions change, and others do not

suffer any essential changes, we can make abstractions, ignoring the latter.

The characteristic features of experiment are control of conditions, measuring of

processes and use of a specific instruments and apparatus. The growing sophistication of the

methods and techniques of experiment, giving it greater flexibility and precision are largely

responsible for current scientific advance.

An experiment may be repeated several times and produce a large number of

observations to prove its conclusions. "Observation and experiment are crafts which are

systematically taught. Sometimes, by a genius, they are raised to the level of an art. There are

rules to be observed: isolation of the system considered, restriction of the variable factors,

varying of the conditions until the dependence of the effect on a single factor becomes evident; in

many cases exact measurements and comparison of figures are essential."27 In order to mount

an experiment, just as when we are making observa tions, there must be some preliminary

knowledge. The researcher must have a certain general notion of the object as something on

which to hook the facts. In most cases an experiment is conducted in order to decide whether

certain theoretical constructions are true or false. A scientific experiment is usually preceded by

some hypothesis, by a mentally devised experimental situation and its possible results, and this

predetermines the specific angle from which the object is examined. It is through the prism of

these constructs and hypotheses that the scientist examines the object and dissects its structure

in his experimental activity. If you look through an electronic microscope at a physical or

biological object, without the right scientific qualification and a well thought-out hypothesis you

will see nothing but a few blobs of light and colour. For what you see to become meaningful you

must have a certain training in the given field of knowledge and certain preliminary ideas. These

general notions or suppositions, working hypotheses, are drawn from previous observations, and

experiments, and from the general human experience, and provide the guidelines for further

experiment. Observation and experiment, whether practical or performed in the mind, cannot

produce any effective results without a clearly conceived goal. If you have no ideas in your head,

you won't see any facts either.

During and as a result of observation and experiment we arrive at description. Description

is done by means of generally accepted terms, visually, in the form of graphs, diagrams,

photographs and films and, symbolically, in the form of mathematical or chemical formulas and

so on. The basic scientific demand in description is authenticity, precision in reproducing the data

of observation and experiment. Description may be complete or incomplete. It always

presupposes a certain systematisation of the material, that is to say, its classification and

generalisation. Pure description 27 Max Born, The Natural Philosophy of Cause and Chance, Oxford, Clarendon Press, 1949, p. 6. 200

takes place only at the very beginning of scientific work. As scientific knowledge is acquired, the

scientist employs the so-called mental experiment, when he operates with certain images in his

mind and puts the object of research into certain conditions which, according to his general

notion, should help to achieve the desired result. This is the usual process of theoretical thought

taking the form of an experiment. An experiment pursues a double purpose, the testing and

confirmation of a hypothesis, and also the heuristic factor. The answer given by the experiment

may sometimes be unexpected, in which case the experiment becomes the prime source of a

new theory. This was how the theory of radioactivity came into being, for example, and it

illustrates the heuristic importance of experiment. Experiment and its results are something that

we obtain through our senses. Thought judges the nature of the object through experiment. In

itself an experiment only establishes certain facts. Thought penetrates into their essence. What

the scientist sees through his microscope or observes through a telescope or a spectroscope

demands a certain amount of interpretation. This means that experimental activity has a rather

complex structure: the theoretical basis of experiment is scientific theory, hypothesis; the material

basis of the experiment is the various instruments and measuring devices that are used; then we

have the actual conducting of the experiment, the experimental observation of phenomena and

processes, the quantitative and qualitative analysis of its results, and their theoretical

generalisation. Consequently,. an experiment comprises both practical and theoretical activity,

the latter being predominant. Observation and experiment enable us to test the authenticity of a

fact or a hypothesis. What is a fact? A fact is a phenomenon of the material or intellectual world which has

become an authenticated part of our knowledge. It is the registering of certain phenomena,

certain properties and relations. Science begins and ends with facts, regardless of what

theoretical constructs are made in between.

The statement that an object exists is the first but very limited stage in cognition. The

establishing of the fact of a criminal case has supreme significance for the court. A court must be

certain that the fact which is being investigated did actually take place. Similarly, the surgeon

cannot begin an operation or the general practitioner has no right to prescribe a drug and certain

treatment without diagnosis, i.e. without establishing the fact of a certain illness.

A scientific fact is the result of reliable observation and experiment. It appears in the form

of direct observation of objects, the readings of apparatus, photographs, descriptions of

experiments, tables, diagrams, notes, archive documents, authenticated evidence of witnesses,

and so on. But in themselves the facts are not yet science, just as building material is not yet a

building. Facts are woven into the fabric of science only when they are selected, classified,

generalised and explained, at least hypothetically. The task of scientific cognition is to reveal the

cause of a given fact, to define its essential properties and establish a uniform link between facts.

The facts that science values most are those that do not fit into any existing theories. It is from

the explanation of such facts that we may hope for scientific advance. 201

along the beaten track. The rope ladder of stereotyped thinking rules out cultural prog ress. Such

a "dormant" life of thought indicates an unhealthy state of the mind and even of the whole

socium. The degree of stereotyped or creative thinking may vary from one person to another.

The creatively thinking individual experiences in spired moments and moments of depression

while the person who thinks in stereotypes may produce something that is not merely trivial. This

variation ranges from the total dogmatism of those who blindly and persistently repeat what they

have learned by heart, to the eagle flight of the genius, who is always sparkling with originality.

Creativity demands tremendous effort and sometimes also an ability to relax completely, so that

one can give oneself up freely to the play of associative images and thus become receptive to

information which may be, as it were, hovering in the atmosphere. The power of creativity is

related to imaginative power, which gives man wings for high-soaring thought. By allowing him to

rise above reality, imagination may indirectly bring his thought nearer to it. There is no sphere of

the mind where logic alone is sufficient, and often the power of imagination brings us by the most

devious roads to the temple of truth. The laws of imagination are still wrapped in mystery. It

operates sometimes on the principle of analogy, which has produced quite a number of great

discoveries and inventions. Creativity is not only a conscious act of the mind, it is also the

unconscious spontaneity of mental phenomena, within which something unusual, something new

may come into being. Only later can it be grasped by the controlling power of reason and fitted

into the tabulated framework of logic. A person may arrive at the truth both by the power of

reasoning and by an instantaneous leap of intuition, when he grasps the essence of the problem

without argument or proof. Here previous experience and certain complex bioinformational

interactions between people are both at work. Intuition and imagination play an enormous role in

creative activity. To them humanity is indebted for much cultural progress, but their power is

effective only in alliance with the power of the rationally thinking mind, guided by the standards of

a historically formed culture. 206

Chapter 5. On the Human Being and Being Human 1. What Is a Human Being?

An ancient maxim tells us that the proper study of man is man. The problem of man is an

eternal and at the same time the most urgent of all problems. It lies at the heart of the

philosophical questions of man's place and destination in a world that is being discovered and

transformed in the name of humanity, the highest of all values. The main goal of social

development is the formation of human abilities and the creation of the most favourable

conditions for human self-expression.

Physicists are perfectly right in stressing the difficulties of research into elementary

particles. But they should not resent being told that such research is child's play in comparison

with the scientific comprehension of games played by children! The rules of any game are only a

conventionally marked path; children "run" along this path very capriciously, violating its borders

at every turn, because they possess free will and their choice cannot be predicted. Nothing in the

world is more complex or more perplexing than a human being.

Many sciences study people, but each of them does so from its own particular angle.

Philosophy, which studies humanity in the round, relies on the achievements of other sciences

and seeks the essential knowledge that unites humankind.

Idealism reduces the human essence to the spiritual principle. According to Hegel, the

individual realises not subjective, but objective aims; he is a part of the unity not only of the

human race but of the whole universe because the essence of both the universe and man is the

spirit.

The essence of man comprises both the spiritual sphere, the sphere of the mind, and his

bodily organisation, but it is not confined to this. Man becomes aware of himself as a part of the

social whole. Not for nothing do we say that a person is alive as long as he is living for others.

Human beings act in the forms determined by the whole preceding development of history. The

forms of human activity are objectively embodied in all material culture, in the implements of

labour, in language, concepts, in systems of social norms. A human being is a biosocial being

and represents the highest level of development of all living organisms on earth, the subject of

labour, of the social forms of life, communication and consciousness.

If we examine human existence at the organismic level, we discover the operation of laws

based on the self-regulation of processes in the organism as a stable integral system. As we

move "upwards", we encounter the world of the mind, of personality. At the organismic level, the

human 207

being is part of the natural interconnection of phenomena and obeys its necessity, but at the

personal level his orientation is social. From the world of biology through psychology we enter

the sphere of social history.

In ancient philosophy man was thought of as a "small world" in the general composition of

the universe, as a reflection and symbol of the universe understood as a spiritualised organism.

A human being, it was thought, possessed in himself all the basic elements of the universe. In

the theory of the transmigration of souls evolved by Indian philosophers the borderline between

living creatures (plants, animals, man and gods) is mobile. Man tries to break out of the fetters of

empirical existence with its law of karma, or what we should call "fate". According to the Vedanta,

the specific principle of the human being is theatman (soul, spirit, selfhood), which in essentials

may be identified with the universal spiritual principle—the Brahman. The ancient Greeks,

Aristotle, for example, understood man as a social being endowed with a "reasoning soul".

In Christianity the biblical notion of man as the "image and likeness of God", internally

divided owing to the Fall, is combined with the theory of the unity of the divine and human

natures in the personality of Christ and the consequent possibility of every individual's inner

attainment of divine "grace".

The Age of the Renaissance is totally inspired by the idea of human autonomy, of man's

boundless creative abilities. Descartes worked on the principle, cogito, ergo sum—"I think

therefore I am". Reason was regarded as the specific feature of man. Soul and body were

understood dualistically. The body being regarded as a machine, similar to that of the animals,

while the soul was identified with consciousness.

Proceeding from this dualistic understanding of man as a being belonging to two different

worlds, the world of natural necessity and that of moral freedom, Kant divided anthropology into

"physiological" and "pragmatic" aspects. The first should study what nature makes of man, while

the second is concerned with what he, as a freely acting being, does, can or should make of

himself. Here there is a return to the conception of man as a living whole which characterised the

Renaissance. Unlike that of the animals, man's bodily organisation and sense organs are less

specialised, and this is an advantage. He has to form himself, by creating a culture. Thus we

arrive at the idea of the historical nature of human existence. For classical German philosophy

the determining factor is the notion of man as a spiritually active being creating a world of culture,

as a vehicle of reason. In criticising these ideas Feuerbach achieved an anthropological

reorientation of philosophy centering it on man, understood primarily as a spiritually corporeal

being, as a vital interlock ing of the "I" and the “you”. According to Nietzsche, man is determined by the play of vital forces and attractions and not by the reason. Kierkegaard gives priority to the act of will, in which the individual, by making a 208

choice, "gives birth to himself", ceases to be merely a "child of nature" and becomes a conscious

personality, that is to say, a spiritual being, a being that determines itself. In personalism and

existentialism the problem of personality is central. A human being cannot be reduced to any

essence (biological, psychological, social or spiritual). Existentialism and personalism contrast

the concept of individuality (being a part of the natural and social whole) to that of personality, as

unique spiritual self-determination, as "existence".

The point of departure of the Marxist understanding of man is the human being as the

product and subject of labour activity. ". . .The essence of man is no abstraction inherent in each

single individual. In its reality it is the ensemble of the social relations."29

2. The Human as the Biosocial

Contemporary science considers the human being on the basis of two different

dimensions of his existence: the biological and the social. Human beings appeared on earth as a

result of a long process of development. As biological creatures, they still retain a close genetic

connection with the animal world. Man's organism has many features in common with the higher

animals.

Man got ahead of the mammals thanks to the intensive development and differentiation of

the cerebral cortex. The characteristic anatomical and physiological features of the human being

are erect posture, free upper extremities, adapted for using and making tools, and advanced

develop ment of the means of communication. The need to maintain balance in the erect posture

caused a certain curvature of the spinal column and a shift in the general centre of gravity.

Since the upper extremities were no longer used for body support and walking, the

skeleton of the lower extremities became stronger and their muscles developed, the feet became

arched to act as springs. All the systems of the internal organs have adapted to the erect

posture, the means of delivering blood from the lower extremities to the heart and the brain have

become more complex. The diaphragm has shifted from a vertical to a horizontal position, the

muscles of the abdomen have come to perform a much greater role in the act of breathing. At a

certain level of anthropogenesis, under the influence of labour activity and communication,

biological development became what is, in effect, the historical develop ment of social systems.

The human being is also a natural being and, as such, is endowed with natural vital

forces, which take the form of inherited qualities. Birth gives man existence as a natural

individual. Although he comes into the world with insufficiently formed anatomical and

physiological systems, they are genetically programmed as uniquely human. The newborn child

is not a "tabula rasa" (clean slate) on which the environment draws its fanciful spiritual patterns.

Heredity equips the 29 Karl Marx, Theses on Feuerbach in: K. Marx and F. Engels, Collected Works, Vol. 5, Progress Publishers, Moscow, 1976, p. 4. 209

child not only with instincts. He is from the very beginning the possessor of a special ability, the

ability toimitate adults, their actions, the noises they make. He has an inherent curiosity, an

ability to enjoy bright objects. He is capable of being upset, disappointed, experiencing fear and

joy. His smile is innate and it can be observed even in prematurely born babies. Smiling is the

privilege of man. And these purely human innate potentials are developed in the course of his

whole subsequent life in society. Many specific features even of the human being's physiological

make-up (the round shape of the head, the sophisticated structure of the hands, the shape of the

lips and the whole facial structure, the erect posture, etc.) are products of the social way of life,

the result of interaction with other people.

To sum up, man is an integrated unity of the biological, the organismic and the personal,

the natural and the social, the inherited and what he acquires during his life. Developing both

historically and in the course of his individual develop ment as a social being, man does not "opt

out" of the multiform biotic flow. The physiological rhythm of the blood circulation, nutrition,

breathing, sex life, the rhythmical vortices of the energy and information processes in the

organism, birth, maturity and death, the phases of individual existence — childhood,

adolescence, rebellious youth, young manhood, maturity, advanced life, old age, senility and

complete decline—all this and much else is genetically programmed. Human beings are the

towering peak of a great biological system, the latest to emerge in time, and the most complex.

Three forms of determination—the biotropic, the cosmotropic and sociotropic—operate in

the human being. They embrace the whole history of humanity, regional and national traditions,

the influence of a certain social group, of microconditions, the great power of biological heredity.

The accuracy and purity of heredity is maintained by a specific material substratum, the

apparatus of the genes, which for millions of years has carefully guarded man's racial essence

as the highest biological species. If a chimpanzee were placed from birth in ideal conditions and

surrounded by gifted teachers, it still would not change from an ape into a man. Heredity sets an

impassable gulf between ape and man.

The genetically coded abilities of the child are the product of a long process of evolution,

but even such apparently simple and seemingly innate abilities as the ability to distinguish

ordinary sounds of speech and musical tones are formed only in the process of its living mastery

of the historically shaped forms of language and music. The ability to think as a human being

does not simply appear and mature in the process of the child's individual development; it is

shaped by life in society. At the moment of birth a child is only a candidate human being, it

cannot become a full member of the human race if isolated. It must learn to become human

through communication, through being introduced to the world of people, of society, which

regulates, guides and fills his behaviour with social meaning. 210

existence of living creatures, including man, is a struggle not so much for the elements that

compose his organism—they are abundantly available in the air, water and underground—not for

solar energy in its direct, electromagnetic radiation, but for the energy that is captured by the

mechanisms of photosynthesis and exists in the form of organic, particularly plant structures.

When we consume vegetable food, we take the energy of nature, particularly that of the sun, at

first hand, so to speak. But plants are also the food of herbivorous animals, and when we eat

meat, we take this energy at second hand.

So the biosphere is not a chaotic conglomeration of natural phenomena and formations.

By a seemingly objective logic everything is taken into account and everything mutually adapts

with the same obedience to proportion and harmony that we discern in the harmonious motion of

the heavenly bodies or the integral paintings of the great masters. With a sense of wonder we

see revealed before us a picture of the magnificent universe, a universe whose separate parts

are interconnected by the most subtle threads of kinship, forming the harmonious whole which

the ancient philosophers surmised when they viewed the world with their integrating, intuitively

perceptive gaze. We are part of the ecological environment and it is a part of the universe. It

contains myriads of stars and the nearest of them is the Sun. The Sun is the master of Earth. We

are, in a certain sense, its children. Not for nothing did the rich imagination on whose wings

mankind flies ever further and higher in the orbit of civilisation portray the Sun in ancient legends

as the highest deity.

But to return to our theme, the bitter truth is that those human actions which violate the

laws of nature, the harmony of the biosphere, threaten to bring disaster and this disaster may

turn out to be universal. How apt then are the words of ancient Oriental wisdom: live closer to

nature, my friends, and its eternal laws will protect you!

4. Man and Society The human being and the group. The problem of man cannot be solved scientifically without

a clear statement of the relationship between man and society, as seen in the primary collectivity

— the family, the play or instruction group, the production team and other types of formal or

informal collectivity. In the family the individual abandons some of his specific features to become

a member of the whole. The life of the family is related to the division of labour according to sex

and age, the carrying on of husbandry, mutual assistance in everyday life, the intimate life of man

and wife, the perpetuation of the race, the upbringing of the children and also various moral,

legal and psychological relationships. The family is a crucial instrument for the development of

personality. It is here that the child first becomes involved in social life, absorbs its values and

standards of behaviour, its ways of thought, language and certain value orientations. It is this

primary group that bears the major responsibility to society. Its first duty is to the social group, to

society and humanity. Through the group the child, as he grows older, enters society. Hence the

decisive role of 220

the group. The influence of one person on another is as a rule extremely limited; the collectivity

as a whole is the main educational force. Here the psychological factors are very important. It is

essential that a person should feel himself part of a group at his own wish, and that the group

should voluntarily accept him, take in his personality.

Everybody performs certain functions in a group. Take, for example, the production team.

Here people are joined together by other interests as well as those of production; they exchange

certain political, moral, aesthetic, scientific and other values. A group generates public opinion, it

sharpens and polishes the mind and shapes the character and will. Through the group a person

rises to the level of a personality, a conscious subject of historical creativity. The group is the first

shaper of the personality, and the group itself is shaped by society. The unity of man and society. A person's whole intellectual make-up bears the clear imprint of

the life of society as a whole. All his practical activities are individual expressions of the

historically formed social practice of humanity. The implements that he uses have in their form a

function evolved by a society which predetermines the ways of using them. When tackling any

job, we all have to take into account what has already been achieved before us.

The wealth and complexity of the individual's social content are conditioned by the

diversity of his links with the social whole, the degree to which the various spheres of the life of

society have been assimilated and refracted in his consciousness and activity. This is why the

level of individual development is an indicator of the level of development of society, and vice

versa. But the individual does not dissolve into society. He retains his unique and independent

individuality and makes his contribution to the social whole: just as society itself shapes human

beings, so human beings shape society.

The individual is a link in the chain of the generations. His affairs are regulated not only by

himself, but also by the social standards, by the collective reason or mind. The true token of

individuality is the degree to which a certain individual in certain specific historical conditions has

absorbed the essence of the society in which he lives.

Consider, for instance, the following historical fact. Who or what would Napoleon

Bonaparte have been if there had been no French Revolution? It is difficult or perhaps even

impossible to reply to this question. But one thing is quite clear—he would never have become a

great general and certainly not an emperor. He himself was well aware of his debt and in his

declining years said, "My son cannot replace me. I could not replace myself. I am the creature of

circumstances."30 It has long been acknowledged that great epochs give birth to great men. What

tribunes of the people were lifted by the tide of events of the French Revolution— Mirabeau,

Marat, Robespierre, Danton. What young, some times even youthful talents that had remained

dormant among the people were raised 30 Ralph Waldo Emerson, Representative Men, London, Bell and Daldy, 1870, p. 113.

221 to the heights of revolutionary, military, and organisational activity by the Great October Socialist Revolution.

It is sometimes said that society carries the individual as a river carries a boat. This is a

pleasant simile, but not exact. An individual does not float with the river; he is the turbulently

flowing river itself. The events of social life do not come about by themselves; they are made.

The great and small paths of the laws of history are blazed by human effort and often at the

expense of human blood. The laws of history are not charted in advance by superhuman forces;

they are made by people, who then submit to their authority as something that is above the

individual.

The key to the mysteries of human nature is to be found in society. Society is the human

being in his social relations, and every human being is an individual embodiment of social

relations, a product not only of the existing social system but of all world history. He absorbs

what has been accumulated by the centuries and passed on through traditions. Modern man

carries within himself all the ages of history and all his own individual ages as well. His

personality is a concentration of various strata of culture. He is influenced not only by modern

mass media, but also by the writings of all times and every nation. He is the living memory of

history, the focus of all the wealth of knowledge, abilities, skills, and wisdom that have been

amassed through the ages.

Man is a kind of super-dense living atom in the system of social reality. He is a

concentration of the actively creative principle in this system. Through myriads of visible and

invisible impulses the fruit of people's creative thought in the past continues to nourish him and,

through him, contemporary culture.

Sometimes the relation between man and society is interpreted in such a way that the

latter seems to be something that goes on around a person, something in which he is immersed.

But this is a fundamentally wrong approach. Society does, of course, exist outside the individual

as a kind of social environment in the form of a historically shaped system of relations with rich

material and spiritual culture that is independent of his will and consciousness. The individual

floats in this environment all his life. But society also exists in the individual himself and could not

exist at all, apart from the real activity of its members. History in itself does nothing. Society

possesses no wealth whatever. It fights no battles. It grows no grain. It produces no tools for

making things or weapons for destroying them. It is not society as such but man who does all

this, who possesses it, who creates everything and fights for everything. Society is not some

impersonal being that uses the individual as a means of achieving its aims. All world history is

nothing but the daily activity of individuals pursuing their aims. Here we are talking not about the

actions of individuals who are isolated and concerned only with themselves, but about the

actions of the masses, the deeds of historical personalities and peoples. An individual developing

within the framework of a social system has both a certain dependence on the whole system of

social standards and an autonomy that is an absolutely necessary precondition for the life and

development of the system. The measure of 222

this personal autonomy is historically conditioned and depends on the character of the social

system itself. Exceptional rigidity in a social system (fascism, for example) makes it impossible or

extremely difficult for individual innovations in the form of creative activity in various spheres of

life to take place, and this inevitably leads to stagnation. The relationships between the individual and society in history. To return once again to the

simile of the river. The history of humankind is like a great river bearing its waters into the ocean

of the past. What is past in life does not become something that has never been. No matter how

far we go from the past, it still lives to some extent in us and with us. From the very beginning,

the character of the man-society relationship changed substantially in accordance with the flow of

historical time. The relationship between the individual and a primitive horde was one thing. Brute

force was supreme and instincts were only slightly controlled, although even then there were

glimpses of moral standards of cooperation without which any survival, let alone development,

would have been impossible. In tribal conditions people were closely bound by ties of blood. At

that time there were no state or legal relationships. Not the individual but the tribe, the genus,

was the law-giver. The interests of the individual were syncretised with those of the commune. In

the horde and in tribal society there were leaders who had come to the fore by their

resourcefulness, brains, agility, strength of will, and so on. Labour functions were divided on the

basis of age and sex, as were the forms of social and other activity. With the development of the

socium an ever increasing differentiation of social functions takes place. People acquire private

personal rights and duties, personal names, and a constantly growing measure of personal

responsibility. The individual gradually becomes a personality, and his relations with society

acquire an increasingly complex character. When the society based on law and the state first

arose, people were sharply divided between masters and slaves, rulers and ruled. Slave society

with its private property set people against one another. Some individuals began to oppress and

exploit others.

Feudal society saw the emergence of the hierarchy of castes, making some people totally

dependent on others. On the shoulders of the common toiler there grew up an enormous

parasitic tree with kings or tsars at its summit. This pyramid of social existence determined the

rights and duties of its citizens, and the rights were nearly all at the top of the social scale. This

was a society of genuflection, where not only the toilers but also the rulers bowed the knee to the

dogma of Holy Scripture and the image of the Almighty.

The age of the Renaissance was a hymn to the free individual and to the ideal of the

strong fully developed human being blazing trails of discovery into foreign lands, broadening the

horizons of science, and creating masterpieces of art and technical perfection. History became

the scene of activity for the enterprising and determined individual. Not for him the impediments

of the feudal social pyramid, where the idle wasted their lives and money, enjoying every

privilege, and the toilers were kept in a state of subjugation and oppression. At first came the

struggle for freedom of 223 thought, of creativity. This grew into the demand for civil and political freedom, freedom of private initiative and social activity in general.

As a result of the bourgeois revolutions that followed, the owners of capital acquired every

privilege, and also political power. The noble demand that had been inscribed on the banners of

the bourgeois revolutions—liberty, equality and fraternity—turned out to mean an abundance of

privileges for some and oppression for others. Individualism blossomed forth, an individualism in

which everybody considered himself the hub of the universe and his own existence and

prosperity more important than anyone else's. People set themselves up in opposition to other

people and to society as a whole. Such mutual alienation is a disease that corrupts the social

whole. The life of another person, even one's nearest, becomes no more than a temporary show,

a passing cloud. The growing bureaucracy, utilitarianism and technologism in culture

considerably narrow the opportunities for human individuality to express and develop itself. The

individual becomes an insignificant cog in the gigantic machine controlled by capital. Alienation

makes itself felt with particular force.

What is alienation? It is the conversion of the results of physical and intellectual activity

into forces that get out of human control and, having gained the whip hand, strike back at their

own creators, the people. It is a kind of jinn that people summon to their aid and then find

themselves unable to cope with. Thus, the state which arose in slave society, became a force

that oppressed the mass of the people, an apparatus of coercion by one class over another. The

science that people venerate, that brings social progress and is in itself the expression of this

progress, becomes in its material embodiment a lethal force that threatens all mankind. How

much has man created that exerts a terrible pressure on his health, his mind and his willpower!

These supra-personal forces, which are the product of people's joint social activity and oppress

them, are the phenomenon known as alienation.

The thinkers of the past, who were truly dedicated to the idea of benefiting the working

folk, pointed out the dangers of a system governed by the forces of alienation, a system in which

some people live at the expense of other people's labour, where human dignity is flouted and

man's physical and intellectual powers drained by exploitation.

The individual is free where he not only serves as a means of achieving the goals of the

ruling class and its party but is himself the chief goal of society, the object of all its plans and

provisions. The main condition for the liberation of the individual is the abolition of exploitation of

one individual by another, of hunger and poverty, and the reassertion of man's sense of dignity.

This was the kind of society of which the utopian socialists and the founders of scientific

socialism dreamed. In contrast to bourgeois individualism, socialist collectivism starts off from the

interests of the individual— not just the chosen few but all genuine working people. Socialism

everywhere 224 requires striking, gifted personalities with plenty of initiative. A person with a sense of perspective is the highest ideal of the creative activity of the socialist society.

5. Man as a Personality The concept of personality. Whereas the concept "human being" emphasises man's biosocial,

body-mind origin, the concept "personality" is connected mainly with his social and psychological

aspects, such as his sense of dignity, his self-appraisal, his value orientations, beliefs, the

principles by which he lives, his moral, aesthetic, socio-political and other social positions, his

convictions and ideals, and also the character, the special features of his intellect, the style and

independence of his thinking, the specific nature of his emotional make-up, his willpower, cast of

mind and feelings, his social status.

One cannot conceive of a personality as something separate from the human being, or

even from his external and general physical appearance. The personality (Lat.persona= mask)

is the face that confronts us. When in their later years, people have plastic operations and face-

lifts, they change their external appearance, which, as psychological observations have shown,

also changes something in their mentality. Everything in a person is "interconnected" and affects

the personality as a whole. What a person looks like is the outward expression of his inner world.

Apersonality is a socially developed person, one who is part of a certain specific

historical and natural context, one or another social group, a person possessing a relatively

stable system of socially significant personal features and performing corresponding social roles.

The personality's intellectual framework is formed by his requirements, interests, frame of

reference, peculiarities of temperament, emotion, willpower, motivation, value orientations,

independence of thought, consciousness and self-consciousness. The central feature of the

personality is world outlook. A person cannot become a personality without evolving what is

known as a world outlook or world- view, which includes his philosophical view of the world.

A knowledge of philosophy is an inseparable attribute of a person's higher education and

culture. Because a world-view is the privilege of modern man and its core is philosophy, one

must know a person's philosophy in order to understand him. Even those who deny and make

fun of philosophy possess a philosophy. Only the animal has no world-view whatever. It does not

meditate upon things in the world, the meaning of life and other problems. A world-view is the

privilege of the personality, that is to say, a human being uplifted by culture. Both historically and

ontogenetically, man becomes a personality to the extent that he assimilates culture and

contributes to its creation. Our distant ancestor, in the conditions of the primitive horde and the

initial stages of the formation of society, was not yet a personality, although he was already a

person, a human being. A child, particularly in his earliest years, is, of course, a human being,

but not yet a personality. He has yet to become one in the course of his development, education

and upbringing. 225

correlation of oneself with the behaviour, words and actions of others, particularly one's

classmates. The growing child comes to know himself more and more fully and accurately and to

judge himself by receiving encouragement or criticism that corrects his own self-appraisal. In

short, the result is that we find ourselves in others and begin to penetrate more and more deeply

into our own world. We thus look at ourselves primarily through the eyes of society, the eyes of

its whole history, and then through the eyes of the future, which emerges as the supreme judge

of our present, of our thoughts, actions and our own self-appraisal. At first the individual

assesses himself through others, and later he himself becomes a yardstick for assessing others.

In this complex interaction of personal relationships one observes a general principle: self-

appraisal and self-testing of the personality is mediated, indirect social appraisal and testing.

Self-appraisal has a wide range of modalities, beginning from Narcissus-like self-adoration

to pitiless self-condemnation, bordering on cruelty, or pangs of conscience so violent that they

may sometimes drive a person to a tragic end. An abated and more relaxed form of self-

condemnation is constant scepticism, remorse, a painful contempt for oneself, an inferiority

complex and, in general, a convoluted personality, which has no confidence in anything and

believes in nothing, a personality tangled up in itself. Such self-consciousness is permeated with

a feeling of constant anxiety and tragedy. But this state of mind, no matter how regrettable, is

often the fate of people with a very subtle and hence vulnerable spiritual make-up. Self-

admiration, over whelming self- confidence approaching arrogance and acting on the principle

that everything is permissible, is quite a different matter. Arrogance uses not the mind but the

elbows and fists, bulldozing its way through. It can be put down by a sudden and vigorous rebuff

or protest. Otherwise it runs riot until it is curbed by severe public censure or even by legal

coercion. The mild appeal to the conscience of those who have no conscience is useless.

Personal self-appraisal and also self-appraisal by a social group, a party or nation is an

exceptionally complex psychological phenomenon. People have somehow evaluated themselves

from time immemorial. We find such self-portraits in diaries, autobiographies, letters, paintings,

religious and other forms of confession. True self-portraits are rare. Most people are tempted to

embellish themselves in the eyes of others and of history. It is rather different with one's own self.

In his secret thoughts a person can be perfectly frank and trust himself with the whole truth. Yet

much of what people think about themselves is pure illusion, which they nevertheless cherish

because it helps them to endure the difficulties and disappointments of real life. Here not only

moral but epistemological factors come into play. A person is not really so clearly visible to

himself. Fear of public opinion and fear of losing prestige, lack of clarity in one's self

consciousness, all these things lead people to misjudge themselves. Here we may observe a

specific tendency to compensate one or another kind of one-sidedness in the personality, a quite

understandable desire to maintain psychological equilibrium, which has a valid biological

purpose. This is no apology for incorrect self-appraisal but a desire to understand what brings it

about. Knowing all this, everyday wisdom advises us to judge a person by his deeds rather than

by what he says about himself. 233 What is the human "Self"? In ancient times the concept of the Self was the object of much

attention among the philosophers of India. The Self was interpreted as individuali ty of spiritual

existence, as the vehicle of the infinitely diverse relations of the personality both with itself and

with everything around it. With great zeal and psychological detail this amazingly subtle and

complex problem has been tackled, mostly at the practical intuitive level, in the various schools of

yoga, which have refined their methods of self-training to an astonishing degree, making wide

use of the techniques of long and systematic concentration on one thing, such as the state and

functioning of the internal organs. In order to achieve complete isolation the yogis went out into

the deserts, the mountains, the forests and plunged themselves into the contemplation of the

world and themselves, and achieved amazing results in self-control, in changing their physical

states and reaching the point of dissolving themselves in the natural whole and the total self-

abnegation known as nirvana, a state of unequalled beatitude. By means of exercises evolved

through the centuries the yogis achieve great self-control over both body and mind. Yoga has

been practised for thousands of years and allowed its adherents to make a very subtle analysis

of the gradations of the various states of the Self, the levels of its regulative functions, the

specific features of its structure.

In ancient Greek culture, the problem of the Self attracted particular attention from

Socrates. He thought of it as something independent, supra-personal, as a very powerful razor-

sharp conscience—thedaimonion by which he was guided at the most critical moments of his

life. This dictating or advising Self told him how best to act.

In medieval philosophy the Self was identified with the soul, whose volitional, emotional

and intellectual forces were striving for communion with God. The individual is torn between

constant fear of punishment and hope of salvation, of the forgiveness of sins, of the goodness of

the Lord. He feels himself a helpless toy before the absolute power of the Creator, while at the

same time he carries on a constant dialogue with God, appealing for his help at moments of

trouble and despair and imploring forgiveness for his sins. The individual is always and

everywhere watched over by a god regarded as the regulating principle in the structure of the

Self. This is observed with great psychological subtlety in the "Confessions" of Saint Augustine,

who identifies the sense and knowledge of Self with the sense of God in oneself. Augustine

maintained that he could not even have a Self if there were no God in him as the regulating

principle of his personal will. Thomas Acquinas was, in effect, proceeding from the same

principle when he maintained that everyone should test his actions in the light of the knowledge

given to him by God. On the whole, the Christian orientation is on personal spirituality, as

expressed in the maxim: "Linger not without, but enter into thyself!"

Beginning with the Renaissance, the orientation of the Self changes sharply. Leonardo da

Vinci defined man as a model of the universe. The personality sets out to reveal itself. This is the

time of the triumph of individuality, the great awakening of the sense of being a person. The 234

individual enters the arena of modern history, asserting the principle of the self-sufficient value of

the Self. According to Descartes, Self means the same thing as "my soul", thanks to which "I am

what I am". A thinking Self knows only one incontrovertible truth—that it thinks, doubts, affirms,

desires, loves and hates. Descartes stressed the rational principle in the structure of the

personality. In his philosophy the Self acts, above all, as the subject of thought, its regulator and

organiser. Rejecting the Cartesian interpretation of the Self as a special substance, English

empiricism regards the Self as a totality of processes. ". . .For my part, when I enter most

intimately into what I call myself, I always stumble on some particular perception or other, of heat or cold, light or shade, love

or hatred, pain or pleasure. I never can catchmyself at any time without perception, and never

can observe anything but the perception." So the Self, it turns out, is nothing but a bundle of

perceptions, which "succeed each other with an inconceivable rapidity, and are in a perpetual

flux and movement".32 These profound reflections of a subtle thinker show that our subjective

pursuit of the essence of the Self is constantly baffled by the actual flow of the concrete

sensations of the given moment, either directed inwardly or outwardly. Nothing else is perceived.

This is rather like a traveller in a wood, who literally cannot see the wood for the trees. He is in

the wood and therefore cannot see it as a whole. It is just the same with ourselves. Wishing to

reconcile rationalism with empiricism, Kant distinguished two types of Self, the empirical and the

pure. The first was the flow of intellectual processes, of various sense impressions rushing hither

and thither, while the pure Self was something that had a kind of supra-individual character. Its

basic function was to unite the multiform by means of pure categories of Reason. This was

known as transcendental apperception, which meant the unity of consciousness, which was the

essence of the Self.

According to Hegel, the Self is the individual as a universal formula embracing all

personalities in general. The individual "self s" become part of the formula as a means of giving it

individual expression. Hegel loathed all preoccupation with the individual and had a great bent

for raising the individual to the universal, to an all-embracing formula in which everything

intimately personal dissolved. In Hegel the Self as a universal formula swallows up all the

concrete egos of separate individuals.

In contemporary Soviet philosophy and psychological literature the concept of the Ego or

Self is usually identified with that of the personality. In my view, this is not quite correct. The

concept of the personality is much wider than that of the Ego. It cannot be identified either with

consciousness or self-consciousness because it also embraces something from the depths of the

subconscious, and this something acts as a kind of irrational "governor" in the structure of the

personality when the unconscious takes into its sinister hands the will o,f the individual and

drives the flows of energy towards irrational behaviour. This is seen particularly clearly, for

example, in neuroses of obsession and paranoidal forms of schizophrenia. The person who

suffers from such mental disorders becomes a prey to voices and images that command him and

guide his thoughts and feelings into nightmares of illogicality and disordered conduct, void of all

adaptive powers. 32 The Philosophical Works of David Hume. in four volumes, Vol. 1, London, 1874, p. 534.

235

Man's mental world, generated by the brain and depending on its biophysical condition

and the state of the organism as a whole, presents a kind of relatively independent structure, with

its own logic, its own specific mental mechanisms, the elements of this structure are mental

states, processes and formations. Moreover, these elements may have several values and are

not all of the same value. And it is this intimately profound subject of all mental phenomena in

their integral wholeness that forms the Ego. This Ego is the spiritual nucleus in the structure of

the personality. It is the very deepest and most profound part of it. In its essence it is psycho-

social. When people speak of "my Self", they have in mind something that is not simply personal

but intimately personal in the highest degree, something extremely precious and valuable and

therefore vulnerable. Hence the phenome non of "hurt Ego", when the personality is wounded to

the quick on its tenderest spot. It is damage to our Ego that causes our most painful and morbid

reactions and moral suffering. The Ego is the throne of conscience itself.

The term "Ego" or "Self" also denotes the personality as seen in the light of its own self-

consciousness, i.e., a personality as perceived by itself, as it is known and felt by the Self. The

"Ego" is the regulative principle of mental life, the self-controlling force of the spirit; it is

everything that we are essentially both for the world and for other people and, above all, for

ourselves in our self-consciousness, self-appraisal and self-knowledge. The "Ego" presupposes

know ledge of and a relationship to objective reality and a constant awareness of oneself in that

reality.

Sensuous and conceptual images, states and goals are all part of the Ego, but they are

not the Ego itself. The Ego rises above all the elements that compose the spirit and commands

them, regulates their life.

Every personality has a large number of facets to its Ego—what it is in itself, how it is

mirrored by its own self-consciousness (the "Ego image") in general and at a given moment in

time, what kind of ideal Ego it conceives (what it would like to be), how it looks in the eyes of

other people at a given moment, particularly the eyes of "those who are something" and also the

"eyes" of the future and even, posthumously, of history, while among religious people it is

important how the Ego looks in the "eyes" of God. All these constantly interflowing aspects of the

Ego, glittering with their own specific colours, possess a certain stability, balance and harmony.

The Ego is essentially reflexive. Its regulative and controlling power takes part in every act of the

individual. It is not the separate mental processes, formations, properties and states, as was

assumed by Hume and long before him by Plato, who urged his readers to think of themselves

as wounderful living dolls manipulated by the gods. The internal states of the personality are

controlled by very fine strings, which pull a person in various and sometimes opposite directions,

some towards good and others towards the precipices of vice. But, one may ask, who pulls these

strings? In Plato, it is a god who 236 made these dolls, called human beings, either for his own divine pleasure or for some serious purpose unknown to us.

If we look at the problem through the categorial apparatus of modern culture, we find that

our Ego is nothing but the integrity, the wholeness of our mental, intellectual world,

notwithstanding its internal contradictions, which are nevertheless harmonised if, of course, the

Ego is in order. The healthy vector of its energy flow is vitality-oriented, life-asserting and in

general self-asserting. The means by which it asserts itself in the stream of existence depend on

the level of its moral culture.

To recapitulate, the Ego is not just the sum-total of sense impressions; it is that to which

all impressions are related. It is not only the vehicle of consciousness, self-consciousness, world-

view and other intellectual phenomena, but also the core of a person's character, the expression

of his principles and positions. It is a living bundle not simply of experience accumulated by the

individual in action, but of the active and guiding force of experience, the power of selfhood, a

certain psychic mechanism regulating this experience and expressed in the fact that the

individual feels himself to be the master of his desires, emotions, thoughts, efforts of will and

actions. Through the prism of our Ego we become aware of the difference between us and

everything else, and feel the constant identity of ourselves with ourselves. The fact that the Ego

performs the role of "master" in the spiritual world of our subjectivity is aptly illustrated by the

phenomena of dreams. In dreams the "master" is absent or rather he is asleep; his controlling

power is no longer active and hence the meaningless kaleidoscope of images, whose origin,

direction and purpose we cannot understand any more than we can understand their connection

with other equally strange guests of our soul.

In a normal waking state, however, the flow of our feelings and volitions has its own logic,

a certain integrity and organising principle, and also a surprising stability of the whole amid this

constant change of its elements. The Ego is something united in its diversity and variability. The

Ego of our childhood is something quite different from the Ego of puberty and adolescence. The

Ego of maturity differs substantially from the Ego of rebellious youth with its abundant hopes, and

also from the Ego of old age and senility, burdened with physical disabilities and an intense

awareness of the approaching and inevitable end.

The differences spanned by the age ladder, particularly between its top and bottom rungs,

are so great that it is hardly believable that this is one and the same person. Evidently we all

experience something similar when we look at photographs taken in our childhood, from which

gaze the naive, innocent, inexperienced eyes of our distant and almost dream-like past. Our Ego

may also change almost instantaneously, depending on the state of our health. It is different in a

state of sickness from when we are healthy. At times of joy and inspiration and high flights of the

intellect the Ego differs greatly from what it is when we are tired. And how enormously,

sometimes beyond recognition, does the Ego change under the influence of drink! As the poet

says: 237 At every instant we are not the same. All changes, changes not the name.

At the same time in all this interflow of the changing Ego, in all conditions, something

invariable, stable, integral is preserved which, like the thread of Ariadne guides a person through

life, saving the something that is his Ego, the something that distinguishes it from any other Ego.

Through out his life a person carries in himself all his ages, recorded on the "tape of memory".

Without this thread that leads us along all the roads of life, our Ego would fall apart into separate,

disintegrated acts of existence and feeling.

The Ego is impossible without concrete sensations, thoughts, feelings and motivations,

principles, positions and value orientations. But sensations, thoughts and feelings constantly

change, moving from one qualitative state to another. They may also be controlled, programmed,

for example, as in the change of personality achieved by an actor. If the Ego were nothing more

than these separate acts of consciousness, it would change together with them and there would

be no unity in this diversity of constantly changing states. There are "situational personalities"

who drift with life and become so malleable that they adapt to any situation, become mere

playthings of circumstance. And there are also natures that are quite the opposite, integrated,

stable, confidently and firmly following their chosen path in life.

The fact that the Ego remains relatively stable and can resist external influence is based

on the brain's ability to record, store and reproduce information. A person regards even his

childish pranks as his own, although they were performed by a different body and a different

(child's) mind. Between our Ego of today and our Ego of yesterday lies a night full of dreams—

the triumph of the unconscious, in which the chain of conscious acts is broken. There would be

no continuity between these Egos but for the bridge of memory that spans the gap.

The plasticity and variability of our Ego reveals itself also in its changes of role. At work as

a manager a person is different, for example, from what he is in the role of father of the family.

When he finds himself in an official atmosphere a person cannot permit himself all that he does

in the family circle. Constantly moving with the flow of life, every person changes his Ego on

entering an office, his home, a railway carriage, an airoplane, theatre, hospital, and so on. Every

day of our lives we are in motion, crossing various thresholds, entering this or that place, which

has its own specific psychological atmosphere, requiring a certain readiness, a certain tuning of

thought and feeling, a certain attitude and state of mind. Any change of situation influences our

state in some way.

This is particularly apparent when a person is in critical situations, taking an examination,

consulting his doctor, meeting somebody he loves, and so on. In order to cope with such

situations a person must reckon with what lies beyond each "threshold of existence". But despite

the amazing 238

In offering people its specific roles society makes specific demands on the performers. In

slave society, for instance, certain roles were allotted to the masters and to free citizens in

general, while quite different roles were assigned to the slaves, who were deprived of almost

every opportunity of displaying social activity. Feudalism substantially changed the roles and the

demands on the performers. The new roles were those of kings, tsars, feudal lords, stewards,

serfs, servants. Capitalism introduced more new roles and requirements for those who were to

perform them. Here there were business men, entrepreneurs, merchants, manufacturers,

workers. Qualitatively different roles and demands on the performers were brought into being by

the world of socialism with its principles of equality, the abolition of exploitation, the new moral

content of labour and of other social functions.

Role-playing in society is not what it is on stage. While an actor plays the part of another

person, the human being in real life is not an actor, he is playing himself and remains himself in

all the forms of his life-activity. Here we have the true essence of the human being as a non-

actor. Exceptions are to be found in the work of the intelligence agent, and so on. But even in

ordinary life people may resort to acting when they find themselves in a difficult situation that

requires cunning or even hypocrisy. This is pretence and it is by no means harmful for the

individual's integrity. When he has played his role, the actor discards the mask and returns to his

own Self, he becomes himself again. Admittedly, there have been cases of an actor entering his

role so completely, particularly when playing a pathological type, that for some time afterwards

he feels the "scratches" left on him by the sick personality he impersonated. In life a human

being may receive not just "scratches" on his Ego, but deep and sometimes dangerous wounds,

when he plays a role to the point of inner discord between his true Self and the mask. On the

moral plane, the splitting of one's own conduct into that of Ego and mask, no matter how we may

try to justify it, signifies an attempt to avoid responsibility for certain aspects of one's activity. The

victory of the mask over the Ego, for which the individual very often blames circumstances—such

is life!—sometimes signifies the triumph of the mask over the true face. It is impossible without

serious harm to the subtle mechanism of one's mentality to live for a long time in an atmosphere

of psychological division, of constant bargaining with oneself. Sooner or later a person must

make his choice. And what at first seemed to be an adaptive mechanism, with the passage of

time is reinforced and assimilated and becomes one's own. The mask becomes the face.

If the person publicly, time and again says something that he does not believe, this

gradually, without his realising it, may cause a change in his beliefs and his motivations. It is

difficult for him to justify his lack of principle, so what is he to do? His only resort is to adapt his

views to his publicly expressed time-serving position. The inner conflict is thus reduced and then

removed and the Ego recovers its integrity, but in a different quality. Sometimes a person does

not identify himself with a certain act, if it remains anonymous or if the action is forced upon him,

or in the case of collectively taken decisions, where the measure of personal responsibility is not

defined and here there may be no conflict. 249

than the responsible agent of his actions? This is the problem of the conflict of the mask and the

Ego. The mask is not the Ego but something quite separate from it. It is put on to hide the true

face, to free oneself from convention and obtain anonymity, and at the same time a personal

freedom amounting to irresponsibility. This happens, for example, in the masquerade. The shy

person no longer has to play the role of shyness, and the servile person need no longer be

servile. A character in one of Marcel Marceau's pantomimes changes his masks before the

public. He is happy, merry and entertains his audience. But suddenly everything takes on a tragic

note: the mask sticks to his face. He struggles and tries to tear it off with both hands, but it is no

use. It won't come off and becomes his new face.

Similar situations are often portrayed by contemporary Western writers. The idea of the

"insincerity" of life one has lived, of the need to fight to preserve one's own Self, to guard its

integrity is found in various forms in the work of Albert Camus, Kobo Abe, Heinrich Boll and

Graham Greene, and in the tragic films of Antonioni and Bergman, which deal with the profound

spiritual conflicts in contemporary bourgeois society, constantly stressing the fragility of human

existence. How difficult it is to live without pretence! How impossible to be oneself!

Writers who think profoundly and honestly have graphically described the tragic situation

of the person who gazes sadly at the face of the unknown. Hence such pessimistic statements

as: "Life is but the melting smoke of a cigarette!" or "Living only means deepening the squalor we

live in!"

Quite often, particularly at turning points in his life, a person has to reappraise all his

previous values and ask himself burning questions that he places before the judgement of his

own conscience. Have I played my roles on the stage of life properly and have I played the right

roles? Or perhaps I have cancelled out the real side of life? Perhaps I have played roles that

were not in the character of my true Self? Perhaps I never found myself in life and was merely a

pawn in the hands of circumstances? Then what is my true calling? Has it gone past me?

Social status does not, of course, rigidly determine the whole diversity of personal

qualities. But every society, social group, class, or social institution does have a ramified system

of "filters", of selective devices by means of which certain kinds, certain types of people who are

most suited to play this or that role come to the top.

It is naive to moralise on the cruelty of the fascist executioners and all other dictatorial

regimes. No person with a fine spiritual organisation could, in principle, succeed in such systems:

he would be either sifted out or perish, or perhaps he might win through as a hero.

To sum up, in human behaviour there is always something preconditioned by society, by

its standards, taboos, traditions, and experience. This is what makes the human being an "actor"

on the great stage of life. At the same time human behaviour cannot be equated with mere

obedience to 251

this precondition. In the very character of the performance of his social role the individual brings

something uniquely individual, something actively creative. When we speak of the social function

of the individual worker, student, scientist, writer, artist, athlete, politician, we have in mind the

personal features of the individual that are essential to him precisely in this social function. But in

studying any individual one cannot confine oneself to his social function. The psychological

aspect is no less essential to a definition of his personality. So, the concept of "personality"

embraces not only the person's social function but primarily his inner essence, which determines

how a person performs his social function.

7. Destiny, Freedom and Responsibility The idea of destiny and necessity. Everything in the world is conditioned and takes place

according to necessity. When we consider not merely objective events that occur in the world but

also conscious human activity, the problem of necessity reveals itself in a new aspect: by

becoming aware of it we turn necessity into freedom. The thinkers of the ancient world pondered

the question of who governed the universe— the gods or destiny? Was the world ruled by reason

or by blind necessity? According to Heraclitus, everything depended on destiny, and destiny

meant necessity. The essence of destiny was reason, which guided everything.

At first destiny was regarded not as a universal abstract necessity but as the fate of

individual mortals. Everyone had his own particular fate. Necessity was thus broken down into a

large number of fatal forces, sometimes embodied in various creatures such as the oracle, the

sorceress, the magician, and so on. Sometimes these forces of destiny came into conflict with

each other.

Fatalism is based on the assumption that everything in the world and in people's lives is

predetermined by natural or supernatural forces, that there is a rational being which sets the goal

for everything that happens in nature, and that this being is called god. Everything in the world is

predestined and no one is responsible for what happens.

Fatalism has a crushing effect on the individual. In human nature he sees a repulsive

sameness, in human relations an irresistible force that belongs to everything in general and to no

one in particular. The individual is merely driftwood on the waves. It is ridiculous to fight against

the relentless law of fate. At best one may discover what it is, but even then one can only obey.

Destiny leads the person who follows voluntarily, and those who resist are dragged by force.

Freedom, according to the fatalist, is no more than the will of the horse, whose harness allows it

to move only in one direction and in the framework of the shafts. Fatalism links up with religion,

which asserts divine predestination. Both fatalism and religion grant human beings only a

predestined role along with the illusion that they are acting independently. In any event the

fatalist sees only a manifestation of necessity. Absolute surrender is what is expected of every

individual in the face of imminent death. 252

Not only the religious idealist philosophers and superstitious people generally, proceeding

from the idea that we can't get away from fate, adopt the standpoint of fatalism. It is also held by

some philosophers who, as materialists, are opposed to religion and idealism, but believe that

everything that happens in the world is predetermined by the "iron chain of cause and effect".

Spinoza, for instance, maintained that people were mistaken in believing themselves free

because they were only aware of their actions but did not know what causes determined them.

In contrast to religious fatalism, Holbach developed the conception of materialistic

fatalism. All events were predetermined, not by the divine will but by the relentless sequence of

cause and effect, a chain from which not a single link could be eliminated. Necessity commanded

not only the physical world but also the world of the mind, wherein consequently everything was

also subordinate to fate. Although this mechanistic conception differs from the religious in that it

makes its appeal to the natural and not to the supernatural, the two coincide in their general

principle. In both philosophies man is doomed to obedience, in one case, to the will of God, in the

other, to the immutable laws of nature. Primitive society presupposes the complete identity of

freedom and non- freedom for its members, none of whom are yet capable of separating their

inner being from that of the tribe. Human actions are thought of as the expression of the will of

supernatural forces, as the inevitable blind and capricious power of destiny, which man must

obey just as he obeys the life cycle of his organism (blood circulation, breathing, etc.) and the

compelling force of instinct.

As classes and states arise, the concept of freedom gradually becomes contrasted to

necessity. In ancient Greece, for instance, a person's inner and outward life was deter mined by

his status in the social system which he inherited in the same way as his natural "gifts". Fate did

not come to a person from outside but unfolded like a scroll out of his very essence. It was the

expression of his character. No matter how tragic their fate, people could not, in principle, desire

another because this would mean becoming someone else. The characters in Greek tragedy are

carved out of marble, as it were. For example, in the works of Aeschylus all the actions of

Oedipus are programmed by fate long before his birth. Even the gods themselves obey fate.

According to legend; the Pythian of Delphi proclaimed that even the gods could not avoid what

was preordained by fate. No one knew the intentions of fate except the three fateful sisters,

Clotho, Lachesis and Atropos. Clotho held the distaff of inevitability on which the thread of life

was spun. Lachesis turned the spindle and decided the actions and events of life. Atropos held

the scissors to cut the thread of life. Although fate was thought of as something unknowable and absolutely mysterious, people sought to discern its intentions by turning to the oracles.

It was believed that fate could not be understood by means of causal explanation and

could reveal its secrets only to the unconscious. The divinity, according to Plato, made prophecy

the province of the irrational principle in human nature. The voice of fate could be heard in

thunder and 253

lightning, in the flight of birds and the rustle of leaves. Later fate came to be identified with

coincidence, chance, something that could not be controlled. A person expected to receive not

what was assigned to him by the objective logic of events, but what came his way in the course

of the game. Circumstances could make a beggar into a king, or a king into a beggar. The

destiny of whole nations was sometimes dependent on petty court intrigues. The only consolation and hope lay in the

fact that fate could be regarded as "lucky chance", as a goddess who could be prevailed upon to

act in one's favour. Later fate came to be seen as an all-embracing and inavertible determinacy,

alienated from human life and assuming its own continuity and necessity—destiny. Man was thus

divided, as it were, into what he was in himself and what he was fated to be. On the one hand,

duty as the expression of a person's social mission and, on the other, his personal feelings and

interests acted as forces operating in different directions and fighting to control the behaviour of

the individual. Now one side, now the other was victorious, depending on a person's inner nature

and on external circumstances. The resulting conflict permeated the whole history of humankind.

The Christian world-view condemns fatalism. It presupposes faith in divine providence,

which leaves room for free expression of the individual will. Confronted by divine omnipotence,

fate has to retreat from the sphere of mythology and philosophical disputes to the world of

ordinary everyday notions. The religiously oriented conscience, dominated by fear of divine

retribution, is opposed to the concept of fate. Everything of importance in human life must

therefore proceed outside its influence. However, the idea of fate does not disappear. It is kept

alive by the prestige of astrology, the principle of man's being part of the picture of the universe,

whose forces determine the logic of human life. This form of belief in fate assumes that a person

is born under a certain star and thus receives a certain programme in life, including even his

personal qualities.

With the spread of the idea of historical progress and hope of the revolutionary

transformation of social life, the concept of fate was defeated in its main citadel, a defeat that is

expressed in both philosophical writings and belles lettres. Shakespeare's Hamlet fights to

determine his line of conduct amid "the slings and arrows of misfortune". But the principles of the

largely irrational life of bourgeois society continue to foster the idea of fate, particularly in social

relations. Many bourgeois political leaders, including Napoleon, the "man of destiny", believed

that politics were pure fate, understood as the play of chance defying reason. Goethe referred to

a mysterious force that everyone felt but which no philosopher had the power to explain.

By studying the symbols of astrology Goethe tried to get back to the ancient conception of

fate as something immanent in all living things, the irrational life programme. According to

Nietzsche, man's selfhood is, in fact, fate. Spengler thought the idea of fate implied active

rejection of individual conscience and good will and scorned all belief in human free will. Fate

was the equivalent of such concepts as "life", "development", and "time". The idea of fate thus

became symbolic of the pessimistic demand for activity at all costs. Though such activity was

bound to be futile, people had to do something all the same. 254

positions, implying a positive principle, which justifies a person's rejection of something and

expresses the meaning and value of his rejection. Any rejection of one thing must imply an

assertion of something else. Every struggle against one thing ultimately amounts to a struggle for

something else. The significance of this struggle is determined by the goals it sets and the

positions from which it is conducted. In this sense freedom is in direct contrast not to necessity,

understood as determinacy, but to compulsion, to coercion, the use of force. But no coercion,

even of the most violent nature, rules out the possibility of freedom, although it may severely

restrict that possibility. The determinacy of freedom should not be confused and certainly not be

identified with coercion. On the other hand, one should not separate intrinsic freedom as a

psychological, personal phenomenon from external freedom, the moral from the political. The

degree to which personal freedom is restricted by compulsion on the part of the ruling classes in

a state based on exploitation has varied historically.

Freedom is a specifically human mode of existence and only that which is the realisation

of freedom can be good in the human sense. One cannot live in society and be free of society.

Freedom, as understood by the Greek philosopher Diogenes, who lived in a tub to show his

independence of society, denotes the breaking of all human and social ties with the world and

thus implies only an abstract symbol of freedom. Such freedom indicates either a withdrawal

from life or a complete opposing of oneself to social standards on the principle "everything is

permissible". However, there is no action that does not in some way affect another person, there

are no completely isolated human beings. The person who alienates himself from the community

does harm to that community. The individual is not free always to act as he sees fit. He must

coordinate his actions with those of the people around him. It is his responsibility to correlate his

behaviour with their interests and activities. He is compelled to suppress some of his feelings and

impulses and channel them in different directions from what he may have wished. These

channels are determined by historically formed social standards, which in relation to the

individual have objective reality.

When speaking of freedom, one should not think of it as doing anything one likes. Such

"freedom" simply does not exist. Human actions are restricted by various factors, legal, moral,

aesthetic, and by various traits of character, natural abilities, and so on. According to Sartre,

freedom is autonomy of choice. It is realised where a person initiates his own desires, chooses

on his own behalf, on behalf of his Self. A girl wishing to become a singer discovers that she

lacks the necessary gifts, so she becomes a teacher instead and her choice turns out to be a

good one. Her personality, her character played a part in this choice. A person's decisions are

also determined by external factors, and to an even greater degree by the whole make-up of his

personality. For example, an honest person acts on principle and we say that he could not act

otherwise. Remember Giordano Bruno, who stood for the truth and could not do otherwise. 258

If circumstances condition human life, and a human being himself changes the

circumstances of this life, if a person is the product of social relations, the social relations are

themselves a product of the activity of living individuals. Man's free fulfilment of goals which he,

as a rational being, sets himself, can be based only on utilisation of the laws of nature and social

reality, not on contempt for them. Consequently, freedom presupposes, above all, a knowledge

of laws that are not dependent on human beings, and it is this knowledge that makes people

intrinsically free. Thus free will emerges as a concept closely related to the concepts of

consciousness and knowledge. Knowledge is not only power, it is also freedom. The only path to

freedom is the path to knowledge; ignorance is bondage. The degree of knowledge determines

the degree of freedom. One cannot desire what one does not know. The core of freedom is

conscious necessity and action, governed by the extent to which we are aware of that necessity,

of the possibility of its realisation. Knowledge in itself is not yet freedom, but there can be no

freedom without it. Freedom implies not only knowledge of the conditions and laws of

development in the present but also preparation of the future results of conscious activity, their

prevision. Both personal and social freedom consist not in some imagined independence of

objective laws, but in the ability to actively choose and take decisions with a knowledge of the

case and, above all, to think and act in conditions that make it possible to realise one's

intentions.

The conception of freedom as conscious necessity is an essential, but only the first, step

on the road to an understanding of the nature of freedom. It allows us to distinguish freedom from

arbitrariness and stresses the priority of objective conditions. Idealism, which maintains the

positions of indeterminism, regards the will as an immanent, autonomous, self-contained spiritual

force, supposedly generating certain actions from its depths. For example, the existential notion

of absolute freedom has no objective roots. According to Nietzsche, "the will to power" has more

need of lucky errors than the truth for which we strive. Why, he asks, is falsehood, the unknown,

even ignorance not better than truth? Jaspers's statement that not truth but ignorance is the

guarantee of freedom strikes us as a meaningless paradox. According to Jaspers, the freest

people of all are the insane, because they have no logic. Existentialism interprets the human

being as a force standing in opposition to the world and hostile to it. Its system of philosophy thus

transforms will into what is, essentially, mere self-will. This is an apology not for freedom but for

arbitrariness. There is a counterblast to this notion in Feuerbach, who believed that freedom was

not the right of any man to be a fool in his own way. If we think that freedom is something

absolute, independent of all objective necessity, we resemble the imaginary pigeon who believed

that it would have flown much faster had it not been for the resistance of the air. It forgot one

"little" thing: without air it could not live, let alone fly.

The framework of human freedom, its reality, is objective necessity. Freedom is a river

that flows within the banks of the laws of life. The law-governed course of historical events in

which people take part is realised not despite but through the human will, through people's

conscious actions. A correct understanding of determinacy rules out any one-sided dependence

of human 259

actions on external influences. This dependence is mediated both by the nature of the person,

his total experience, interests, character, value orientations, and so on. The effect of external

influences on a person depends on how that person reacts to these influences, to what extent

they affect the vital cords of his being. Depending on his personal beliefs and conscience, a

human being is free to desire both good and evil. The content of a person's beliefs manifests

itself in decisive actions. This is what makes a person responsible for them. When he chooses

one action from a number of possible actions and rules out the others, the chosen action is also

determined. But it was not predeter mined before it took place. Until the action is completed, not

all the determining factors are present. To assume that it was completely determined before it

took place would be to substitute predestination for determinacy and thus exclude freedom

altogether. In human actions everything is deter mined but there is nothing predestined in them.

Man is not ruled by the power of fate. What is more, the apparent incompatibility of freedom and

necessity, in the sense of determinacy of events, arises because along with acknowledgement of

the determinacy of human actions these actions themselves, and also the decisions involved, are

thought of as being outside this determinacy. A person defends his freedom not from being

determined by everything that exists but from the blind irrational forces, which impose the fetters

of taboo and compulsion on his thoughts, his feelings and his will. Consequently the measure of

freedom is part of the concept of man.

Man is free not from nature, not from society and their laws, but within the framework

provided by the operation of both the laws of nature and society. When they are known, they

make a person's will relatively free. But they also determine its limits, the limits to the realisation

of goals that man sets himself: free will is not self-will, arbitrariness. Spinoza in his day thought

that freedom should be understood as free necessity and not as arbitrariness. The will is the

most active part of the human consciousness. It shows itself in the desire to act, in choice of the

direction of action, in the decision to act in a certain way and realise a certain goal. A human

being is not a piece of driftwood on the waves of cause-effect connections. He is active. Free will

manifests itself precisely in purposeful activity.

To sum up, freedom is the ability, based on knowledge of necessity, to choose and to act

in accordance with this necessity. It consists not only in knowledge of natural and social laws but

also in the practical realisation of this knowledge. Realisation of freedom presupposes the

overcoming of certain obstacles, and the more difficult the obstacles, the stronger and more

freedom-loving the will must be. "... Freedom is not a reward or a badge of distinction that is

celebrated with champagne. It is not some nice present, such as a box of chocolates. Oh, no!

Quite the contrary, it is an imposition, a gruelling race that one must run alone. No champagne,

no friends to raise a toast and give you their friendly encouraging glances. You are alone in a

dim hall, alone in the dock before your judges, and alone you must answer to yourself and to the

court of humanity. At the end of every freedom there awaits retribution, and that is why freedom

is too hard to bear...."35 35 Albert Camus, La Chute, Gallimard, Pans, 1956, p. 154. 260

A human being realises his essence in material and intellectual activity, in its results,

which appear as his "objectified" human abilities, skills, ideas, feelings and will. Consequently,

the whole history of material and spiritual culture emerges as the external existence of man's

inner world.

Free will is. the mode of realisation of one of the possibilities of action, the creative

drawing up of an ideal plan of action, the process of goal-setting, which presupposes the choice

of only one reference point from a whole hierarchy of possible directions and motives. Every

choice means ruling out what is not chosen and emphasises the vital significance of what is.

Thus in its very essence action presupposes a relative freedom of will, the possibility of choice.

Some people believe that choice is made not so much by the individual as by circumstances,

which choose for him. This also happens. But it is not characteristic of strong-willed people.

Freedom lies not only in the choice of a certain aim from a number of possibilities, but also in

creativity, in the setting of new goals. Freedom is not only conscious necessity, but also the

existence created by human beings themselves, the social relations, the world of material and.

intellectual culture. Historical necessity arises as the natural outcome of the subjective orientation

of human actions and their objective result, which takes shape independently of will and

consciousness. In this case dialectics means that the freedom of the individual acting in history

becomes through the results of his actions his necessity.

The idea of freedom is wholly human and social. It differs in every concrete historical set

of circumstances. In itself freedom is an abstraction. As a reality it is always full of concrete

historical meaning. Freedom is a historically developing thing, a process of development that is

never fully realised. Nature knows no freedom. "The first men who separated themselves from

the animal kingdom were in all essentials as unfree as the animals themselves, but each step

forward in the field of culture was a step towards freedom."36 Because it is social, the idea of

freedom is historical and reflects the metamorphoses of the idea of fate and necessity. By no

means everything in human life and relations is the result of the realisation of freedom. They also

contain much that is irrational and inevitable, they are bound by a framework that sets the limits

of the permissible for every historical epoch. The degree to which the individual's personal

freedom is curtailed by his duty to the state varies greatly, and is both concrete and historical.

All nations, the best minds of humanity have from time immemorial longed passionately

for a just social system, for democracy, for freedom. When voiced by the people, this word

makes dictators and tyrants shudder. Under the banner of freedom the rising people have

toppled the thrones of monarchs and the power of capital. The whole history of mankind may be

pictured as a stubborn ascent to the cherished peaks of liberty. The call for freedom has always

had popular appeal. Despite all contradictions, freedom has blazed a road for itself even in the

face of antagonistically contradictory social development. 36 Frederick Engels,An ti-Dü h rin g, p. 137. 261

The feudal lord possessed great freedom and arbitrary power because his subjects were

deprived of freedom. In slave society this contradiction was even more striking. Through

contradictions, including antagonistic ones, the history of mankind moves along the path of

development of freedom for the individual, both in relation to the spontaneous forces of nature

and to social conditions. To achieve social freedom one must first "kill the slave in one's own

self".

"What kind of freedom?" asks Dostoyevsky. "Equal freedom to do anything one likes

within the limits of the law. When can one do that? When one has a million. Does freedom give

everyone a million? No. What then is a person without a million? A person without a million is not

one who does anything he likes but one who has everything that other people like done to him."37

Reflecting on the exploiting society of his day, Schiller wrote:

Into the bosom's holy, silent cells,

Thou needs must fly from life's tumultuous throng!

Freedom but in the realm of vision dwells,

And beauty bears no blossoms but in song.38

The true freedom of the working man in an exploiting society shows itself in revolutionary

action aimed at realising the objective laws of history. The desire for freedom is an essential

feature of the revolutionary character.

The objective conditions for true freedom come about only with the abolition of the society

based on relations of domination and obedience, on various forms of oppression. Marx and

Engels defined personal freedom as the positive strength to manifest true individuality, they

believed that to secure freedom "each man must be given social scope for the vital manifestation

of his being".39 In communist society, Marx observed, beyond the realm of necessity there would

begin the development of the human personality as a goal in itself. Responsibility. Human behaviour is regulated by many factors, including moral standards, the

sense of shame, of conscience, of duty, and so on. The basic manifestations of the ethical life

are the sense of social and personal responsibility and the awareness of guilt that this implies.

Responsibility is not only a moral category, but also a psychological, legal and socio-political one. Great controversy has raged around this problem for centuries. The idealists believe the sources of responsibility to be in the immanent principles of the human personality, even in the 37 F. M. Dostoyevsky, "Winter Notes on Summer Impressions. An Essay on the Bourgeois" in: Collected Works, Moscow, 1956, Vol. 4, p. 105 (in Russian). 38 The Poems of Schiller. Translated by Edgar Alfred Bowring, G.B.N.Y. United States Book Company, Successor John

W. Lovell Company, p. 289. 39 Karl Marx and Frederick Engels, The Holy Family in: Collected Works, Vol. 4, p. 131. 262

unified history of humankind. We are concerned with a score or so of unique and self-contained

civilisations, and all of them are equally valuable in their own peculiar way. In its development

every civilisation passes through the stages of emergence, growth, breakdown and

disintegration, after which it is replaced by another. At present, according to Toynbee, only five

main civilisations have survived: the Chinese, the Indian, the Islamic, the Russian, and the

Western. Civilisation's driving force is the "creative minority", which leads the "passive majority".

In the stage of disintegration the minority imposes its will on the majority not by authority but by

force. The doctrines of Toynbee and Sorokin are both idealist, in the sense that they tend to

ignore the development of the material life of society as the basis of the historical process and to

absolutise the spiritual element. On the other hand, these doctrines do attempt to revise the

mechanistic doctrine of the purely linear progress of society, to evolve an alternative to the

conception of "Eurocentrism".

Marxism went to the root of the problem by showing that the development of society

proceeds in successive stages, pinpointing the distinctive features of each stage, and thus

evolving the category of the socio-economic formation. This placed our understanding of history

on a scientific, dialectical-materialist basis, which is the only feasible one. The category of the

socio-economic formation is crucial for interpreting both the history of mankind and its specific

phenomena, such as culture and its interconnections with society and the individual.

However, this category does not account for the whole categorial apparatus of socio-

philosophical thought. The infinitely rich texture of history cannot be reduced to various types of

formation and the histories of many nations do not fit into any formational typology. Some nations

never passed through the slave-owning formation, others "bypassed" capitalism, others are a

mixture of tribal, feudal, capitalist and even socialist relations, while yet others exist in a state so

indefinite as to defeat even the most subtle socio philosophical typology. In view of this

complexity of the historical process, Engels noted that no one specific formation had ever exactly

corresponded to its definition. History is constantly moving forward but not in a straight line; it

zigzags, it turns back and all these different directions are taken in an extremely unsteady

rhythm. The arrangement of the socio-economic formations in a straight line is a scientific

idealisation, which the ideological critics of Marxism misinterpret as a desire to provide a

theoretical basis for the idea that all the roads of history lead to one goal, and that all the past

has been merely an exhaustingly long preparation for the ascent to the sunlit peak of universal

happiness. But mankind's desire for social equality is indeed a recurring phenomenon. From time

immemorial it has provided inspiration to the best minds of humanity, but this does not make the

vector of history a straight line. Each people takes its own road. Some civilisations achieve a

great and brilliant efflorescence and then, for some strange or even known reason perish, as was

the case with the Mayas; other civilisations soar like a firework into the heavens, shedding their

brilliant light on everything around them, then fall back in a shower of historically insignificant

sparks. Yet others move slowly, retaining their uniqueness, protected from change as if by

embalmment. 269

In Marxist literature there is no unanimity about the meaning of civilisation. Some thinkers

are inclined to dismiss the concept altogether, holding that it adds nothing to the broad concept

of society. Others identify civilisation with the socio-economic formation, which is also a way of

denying the necessity for the concept of civilisation. I believe that the correct standpoint is to

regard civilisation as a special and very important category, as something which coincides with

the category of the socio-economic formation in some respects but also differs from it essentially

in others. The concept of civilisation "works" particularly well when world history is thought of in

global terms, as something integral, and the future of mankind is regarded from the standpoint of

unity and diversity. Historically civilisation defines not the early dawn of humanity, not its

childhood or even adolescence, but its youth and maturity, the established forms of society.

Basing himself on Lewis Henry Morgan's book Ancient Society, Frederick Engels followed him

in observing that society began with the stages of savagery and barbarity. These were the first

gleams of sociality. And they were superseded by civilisation, the centres of which arose in

various continents, some in Africa, others in Asia, others in Europe, and yet others in America.

From this point we can begin to discuss the stages of civilisation and its corresponding forms. The concept of civilisation has more than one meaning. Generically it denotes the historical alternative to the savagery and barbarity, which we mentioned above.

Secondly, civilisation may be taken to mean a relatively high stage in society's mastery of

the forces of nature, a relatively high level of organisation of social relations and, in general, all

aspects of social existence and culture and also a uniqueness of material and spiritual life of

society in the framework of the nation, the state unit or the region. In this sense it embraces the

overall motion of human history, the global achievements of society, the world standards evolved

in the development of culture, society, technology and the productivity of labour, and also, of

course, all the specific features of regional, national and ethnic forms of social existence.

Thirdly, civilisation may be thought of as a limitless universal phenomenon embracing not

only terrestrial but also extraterrestrial forms in their assumed endless diversity, denial of which

would be tantamount to acknowledging the greatest of all divine miracles. The universe is eternal

and infinite. It cannot, in principle, contain only one terrestrial civilisation. If it did, civilisation

would not be something natural and functioning according to certain laws, but a unique,

unnatural, entirely fortuitous exception to the logic of the life of the universe and would thus have

to be regarded as something miraculous. This was intuitively perceived by many ancient thinkers,

who acknowledged a countless number of worlds inhabited by rational beings. It would be only

natural if human civilisation, having penetrated outer space, sooner or later came into contact

with extraterrestrial forms of civilisation. The present age is characterised by a growth of integrating trends and the acceleration of development. Uniqueness preserves itself by overcoming its own hypertrophy. Even the least 270

developed countries are being drawn increasingly into the orbit of modern civilisation.

Interrelations are becoming closer and there is greater exchange of historical experience

between one nation and another. All this goes to show that an unprecedented world-historic

community of mankind is in the process of formation and requires a joint coordinating reason, not

centrifugal forces that generate trouble spots all over the world and bring grief and suffering upon

millions of innocent people. More intensely than ever before humankind expects enmity and strife

to be replaced by order and harmony. As yet, however, everything is in a state of contradiction.

The victories of technology are often won at the cost of human health. Even the pure light of

science with its radiant truths may also contain destructive rays. Discoveries and inventions, all

the brilliant fireworks of the human intelligence, may burn up the very torch of reason.

While acquiring boundless wealth, although in extremely unevenly distributed forms,

mankind has also created the real possibility of its own destruction. The imperialist threat of an

annihilating nuclear, laser, chemical and bacteriological war has as its scientific and

technological premise the achieve ments of modern civilisation. How is it that the great forces of

civilisation imply not only benefits for humanity but also the possibility of a completely opposite

effect? Where can we find a realistic solution to this seemingly hopeless contradiction? This

predicament has been ideologically expressed in various philosophical, sociological, artistic and

religious works whose conceptions tend to be more and more often of an apocalyptic nature. The

scientific answer to these problems is given by Marxism and the real solution to them is to be

found in the achievements of the countries of socialism.

The wise statesman is one who understands the overall tendency of the historical

process, the law-governed tendency of society to organise itself in such a way as to eliminate the

very possibility of some people building their happiness on the unhappiness of others, to liberate

everyone ·from social inequality, from the unjust distribution of wealth, which results in some

people smothering themselves in luxury while others are deprived of the merest necessities.

Civilisation is characterised not only by the level of production of material and spiritual

goods that has been achieved, by a certain stage in the development of social relations, by

freedom of the individual and of the nation as a whole, but also by thepossibility, the potential

for progress that is inherent in the social system it has evolved. The higher the civilisation, the

richer and more energetic its potentials, the more rational and viable its orientation on the future.

But not, of course on the "pie-in-the-sky" principle.

A society that has been doomed by history lacks these vital potentials and its line of

development declines, like that of the Roman Empire, for instance. Empires in general tend to

resemble the dinosaur. With its gigantic body and disproportionately small head, it became less

and less capable of rationally organising its own life activity and therefore was unable to compete

in the 271 grim struggle for existence. In the extinction of this clumsy giant among animals we may justifiably perceive a symbol of the inevitable end of imperialism in general.

Imperialist expansion, the desire for world domination in all its forms, the growing menace

of war, the accelerating pace of scientific and technological progress and the accompanying

ecological disturbance, threaten civilisation with a serious crisis. A vicious circle has arisen from

which only the responsible forces of the collective wisdom of humanity can save us. It is not

enough now for statesmen to think on the scale of the interests of one state. What humanity now

needs are minds that think in terms of the planet as a whole.

The paramount consideration today is the preservation of peace, which has become the

cause not of just one nation but of all nations, and responsibility for peace rests on the shoulders

of every rationally thinking person and all social groups and classes of society. The defence of

peace is the highest aim of the peoples of the socialist countries and this fact is enshrined in their

constitutions. The philosophy of culture. Civilisation depends on culture for its development and existence and, in its turn, provides the conditions for the existence and development of culture. Historically culture precedes civilisation.

Usually culture is understood as the accumulation of material and spiritual values. This is

a broad and largely correct interpretation but it leaves out one main fact, and that is the human

being as the maker of culture. Culture is quite often identified with works of art, with

enlightenment in general. This definition is too narrow. Nor can one agree with the notion that

culture embraces only the sphere of intellectual production, even if we take this sphere to include

the whole of science. Such an interpretation leaves out a great deal. For example, the culture of

physical labour, administration, of personal relationships, and so on. Reducing culture to the

intellectual sphere results in an elitist approach depriving culture of its nationwide significance.

But any person may make a contribution to culture, and not only artists, writers, or scientists. The

concept of culture is an integral and all-embracing concept which includes various phenomena,

ranging from the cultivated blackcurrant bush to La Gioconda, and methods of administrating

the state. Culture defines everything that man does, and how he does it, in the process of self-

fulfilment. Culture is the method of the self-realisation of the individual and society, the measure

of the development of both. Various fields in knowledge— ethnography, archeology, history,

literary criticism and so on—study the various spheres of culture. What we are interested in here

is not the numerous spheres in which cultural activity of various peoples, nations, ethnic groups,

social groups and individuals have manifested themselves, but the essence of culture, i. e.,

culture as a philosophical category. We may gain some idea of the meaning of culture by turning to the etymology of the word, which can be traced back to the Latincultura, deriving from the wordcolere, meaning both to 272

"cultivate" and to "worship". It is a curious fact that the very origin of the wordculture contains

the wisdom of the people's understanding of culture as the worshipful cultivation of something,

particularly the land. The word "culture" was thus from the beginning related to good action. And

action usually means assimilation of our world in some form or another. It may therefore be said

that culture is a kind of prism, through which everything essential to us is refracted. Every nation,

every level and form of civilisation, and every individual attains knowledge of the world and a

mastery of its principles and laws to the extent that it masters culture. The forms of culture are a

kind of mirror that reflects the essence of every enterprise, its techniques and methods, and the

contribution which it makes to the development of culture itself. In this sense man himself is a

phenomenon of culture, and not only of nature. If we may attempt an analogy, it may be said that

culture is the opened, read and understood pages of the "book of life", pages which when

assimilated by the individual become his selfhood.

Culture is not merely a matter of skill raised to the level of art, but also a morally

sanctioned goal. Culture manifests itself in ordinary consciousness and everyday behaviour, in

labour activity and the attitude that one adopts to such activity, in scientific thought and artistic

creation and the vision of their results, in self-control, in one's smile and manner of laughing, in

love and other intimate relationships, which the individual may elevate to unexpected heights of

tenderness and spiritual beauty. The truly cultured person shows all these facets in every

manifestation of his selfhood. Culture is characterised by the vital ideals of humankind, of the

individual, the social group, the class and society as a whole. The more significant these ideals,

the higher the level of culture.

In what forms does culture exist? First of all in the form of human activity, which is

generalised into certain modes or methods of its realisation, in the sign or symbolic forms of the

existence of the spirit, and finally in palpable material forms, objects, in which the individual's

purposeful activity finds its embodiment. As something created by human beings, culture is at the

same time a necessary condition for humanity's cultural existence and development. Outside

culture the individual cannot exist as a human being. As water permeates soil, culture permeates

every pore of social and individual life. When studying one or another culture We usually think of

it as something relatively independent. In reality, culture exists as a historically evolved system

comprising its objects, its symbolism, traditions, ideals, precepts, value orientations and, finally,

its way of thought and life, the integrating force, the living soul of culture. In this sense culture

exists supraindividually, while at the same time remaining the profoundly personal experience of

the individual. Culture is created by mankind, by the nation, the class, the social group and the

individual. The objective forms in which culture exists are the fruit of the creative activity of the

people as a whole, the masterpieces of geniuses and other great talents. But in themselves the

objective and symbolic forms of culture have only a relatively independent character; they are

lifeless without man himself and his creative activity. All the treasures of culture in their palpable 273

thought, was thrashing about, violently, convulsively like a flood seeking an outlet, with no

thought of its own actions and even fearing to consider them. While acknowledging the

multiplicity of local cultures, each of which was passing through its life cycle and dying, Spengler

maintained that civilisation was the dusky end of culture, its ossified body. Why were two such

positive concepts, expressed in such fine words, so sharply contrasted? Both thinkers, horrified

by the crisis they observed in the world of capital, were painfully aware that certain destructive

principles had arisen and were gaining momentum in civilisation, which both produced cultural

values and put them at risk of total destruction. What Nietzsche and Spengler failed to see,

however, was that the destructive principles were not inherent either in civilisation or culture, but

in the character of the socio-political relations of the society they were studying. In many respects

politics determines the vector of the forces of both civilisation and culture.

It is generally known that a disproportion very often arises between the level of civilisation,

particularly its technico-economic reality, and the level of culture that has been achieved, and

that this disproportion may become paradoxical. The times of the oil lamp and the wooden

plough were graced with brilliant achievements in art, literature and philosophy. We have only to

think of the great cultures of ancient Greece and even more the ancient Orient, the age of the

Renaissance, and of Russian culture, which in conditions of serfdom astonished the world. This

does not mean, of course, that beneficial urges of the mind require difficult circumstances,

although there is a modicum of truth in this notion. Great works of art have indeed often been

created in very hard conditions, as though they required some kind of resistance, a kind of

"purgatory" in order to test the strength of their all-conquering power. But this in no way suggests

that the difficulties themselves give rise to greatness. Difficulties are not its "parents" but merely

its stern "examiners"! By no means all nations who are known for their backwardness in the

technical and economic spheres have created masterpieces of world cultural significance. Here

there is a mystery which demands a solution.

At one time cultures tended to be extremely self-contained, closed. In the course of their

comprehensive historical development they became more open to all kinds of influences and a

process of interaction of cultures took p lace. Life evolves increasingly flexible mechanisms for

this interaction, which helps to raise the whole culture to a higher level. Despite their uniqueness,

the originality of the subtle fabric of any given culture, whose threads go back into the distant

past, the various types of culture are in principle comparable, and a dialogue of mutual

understanding can, and does, take place between them. Culture in its individual and socio

psychological expression is also characterised by the means with which it assimilates other

cultures and its relation to them. Indifference or even hostility to the unique aroma of "alien"

cultural values indicate a low level of development of one s own culture. Today one may observe

a tendency towards the flowering of national cultures, one feels the great potential of ethnos.

One may assume that further human progress will take place in the form of a mounting rational

mutual enrichment of the cultures of West and East in the historical sense of the term. The

overall unity of the general principles of 278

human thought does not preclude a certain historical specific in the philosophies and other forms

of culture. The predominantly analytical Western mind, which dissects everything into parts with

its scientific scalpel, will be enriched by the intuitive integrating spirit of the Orient, by borrowing

its subtle truths and perceptions and in its turn enriching them. World culture can only gain from

this beneficial and probably indispensable synthesis which can be achieved without dimming the

unique and rich colours of the local cultures. The world of values. The highest of all existing values is man himself, his sense of dignity, his

honour, his rights, his free thought, the self-realisation of his capabilities. Man has at his disposal

the ocean of cultural values created by world history, and also the boundless treasures of virgin

nature, which he is constantly using and enjoying as far as his own talent, education and

upbringing permit him. The value perception of the world is a special dimension of reality in its

application to man and society. An unquenchable need to know the meaning of life is a part of

the very structure of the human ego and this impels us to build and accept a certain system of

values, by which we must be guided in our thoughts, feelings and actions, in our relation to the

world and to other people. In order to know what kind of a person we are dealing with, the nature

of this or that society, we must examine it very closely and try to see what it is ruled by, what it

worships, what it admires and what it hates, what it is striving for and what it avoids by all

possible means. A system of values is something that is deeply rooted in the structure of our

ego. Everyone knows how painful, even agonising any "reappraisal" of values can be.

Things and processes, events, people, culture—all this exists objectively, independently of

us, but it may also exist for us; we get to know the world, to admire it, we enjoy something or use

it for some purpose or other. A human being cannot limit himself merely to stating the fact that

something has happened, is happening or will happen, i. e., to mere knowledge of the fact as

such. He always tries to understand, or sense what meaning this fact has for him, for his life, and

also for the life of others, his own family, the life of society, whether it bodes well or ill.

How is one to define the concept of value in philosophy? Value is a fact of culture, and it is

social in its very essence. It is a functional and at the same time an objective-subjective

phenomenon. In themselves, things, events, outside their relation to man, to the life of society, do

not exist as "categories of value". But as soon as a given reality comes into the focus of human

consciousness and is made, transformed or modified by it, it also acquires a value aspect of its

existence, a meaning. For example, instruments of labour, like everything else made by man, are

a value which both determines the mode of their production and demands that they be used in a

certain way. Life gives things certain functions—ways of serving man with their natural and man-

made properties. This refers not only to humanised nature, that is to say, to the whole massif of

civilisation, but even to the celestial bodies. They are in themselves significant in the context of

the universe, as is everything in nature. But man's perception of them, the way he sees and

comprehends them, and his relation to them are already a phenomenon of culture. The stars, for 279

example, "speak" in various ways to man. In various periods of his history, at different levels of

culture and even depending on his state of mind and mood man has had different attitude to the

stars. The concept of value is correlative with such concepts as "meaning", "use" or

"harmfulness". Use may be of a purely utilitarian character. There may be material or spiritual

values (clothes, home, implements of labour, knowledge, skills and so on). We speak of the truth

as a cognitive value, which brings enormous benefit to human beings and may also be used for

evil purposes, as scientific truths often are. People may be burned at the stake or condemned to

penal servitude for the sake of truth. History abounds in the exploits of people who have done

good for others. These are moral values.

Cultural values are expressed in all kinds of symbols and systems of symbols, which

constitute a huge layer of our value consciousness. An important place in this system belongs to

the names of famous people, of heroes, various kinds of rituals, memorials, and so on. A person

is born with symbols. His whole conscious life is surrounded by them. He dies with them. They

accompany him on his last road. Symbols pursue us even into "the other world". Historians are

known to have long disputes about the place of burial of some historical personalities.

What is the secret of the beauty of virgin nature, of the marvellous colours of the ever

rolling sea waves, of the purple sunset, the enchanting Northern Lights, the majestic silence of

mountains or the sounds of the forest? Is the delight that a human being experiences when he

perceives all this confined simply to physical reality? Of course, not. And what kind of a reality is

this delight anyway? Here we need not everyday language, but the language of music and art,

the world of images used by the poet and writer. In other words, here we are speaking of

aesthetic value.

When a person describes beauty, he characterises the aesthetic reality through his

sensations and emotions in inseparable unity with the source that evoked them or, on the

contrary, he describes the objective source in its unity with the emotions it has evoked in his soul.

Nature speaks to us in our human language. Any attempt to think of beauty by itself, outside the

objective-subjective unity is senseless. And this is true of everything that concerns the world of

values.

When discussing the objective content of value, we also encounter a certain degree of

convention. For example, conformity to the rules of decency is a phenomenon of cultural value.

But what is considered decent depends on historically shaped standards and customs.

Such are the logic and psychology of the value relationship that an object discovered by

our need may become an interest while the opportunities for satisfying that need remain

extremely indefinite, problematic. This increases the attraction of the object, thus raising its

value. What do people think of as valuable? And what is really valuable at bottom? The measure

of value is decided by the degree of significance that a given object has for man and the

possibility of acquiring that object. Value is historical. Take, for example, time. In the distant past

time was treated carelessly, 280

people scarcely bothered to count it. But now time is becoming increasingly compact and costly.

People value it more and more, it has even acquired a commercial significance. In the age of the

scientific and technological revolution nearly every human action is timed down to the last

minute. The value that human beings attach to time characterises in some degree the level of

their culture.

When making an evaluation, particularly when facing a choice, it is important to know how

strong and lasting is the "pleasure" or usefulness, the significance, including the negative

significance, connected with the attainment of what is chosen. Whether it is easily or repeatedly

attainable. As most people know, there is what we call the phenomenon of the effort spent: the

more effort we have put into something, the more valuable it is for us. We attach less value to

what was easily obtained. An act of heroism, involving self-sacrifice, is highly valued precisely

because it is significant for society and there was a possibility of action of a quite different order.

The beautiful is beautiful only against the background of the ugly. This applies equally to both

moral and aesthetic values.

The evaluating consciousness has its "yardstick" which it constantly applies to things,

events and actions, to everything that concerns people. The ideal is the eternal criterion in moral,

aesthetic, political and other assessments of events, things and people. One cannot,

consequently, speak of values outside their specific historical content, out of the context of the

type of civilisation, formation or culture that is involved.

The phenomenon of value is linked not only with the intellectual, the cognitive sphere, but

also with the rich sphere of human emotions. After all, it is our emotional state that constitutes

the decisive psychological condition of happiness. Wisdom tells us that happiness—one of the

supreme values— does not depend on high social status, power and riches or even intellectual

ability.

Value is a "capricious thing". An object of value may be admired, it may repel, it may

arouse delight in some and contempt in others, while others remain entirely indifferent. Much

depends on taste and taste is fickle and subject to the "winds" of mood, of time and space. Taste

may be traced to the depths of the human soul, which is moulded by the forms of culture which

the individual has absorbed.

Although values are concretely historical, there are some which, like diamonds, are

treasured at all times. These are the values of wisdom, kindness, heroism, love of one's parents,

the love of a mother for her children, and respect for one's ancestors, for one's country, for

freedom.

To sum up, then, the concept of value expresses the properties of things, phenomena,

events, material and spiritual objects satisfying, or capable of satisfying, certain needs and

interests of human beings and society. Value is that which has meaning for man and society. All

objects that are of interest to human beings, and thus possess value, have only a conditional

value. Were it not for 281

human inclinations, liking and interest, and the needs on which they are based, these objects

would not have any value. Consequently everything that brings or may bring satisfaction of

human needs, beginning from the most elementary, instinctive biological and material needs, to

the sophisticated demands of intellectual taste, composes a world of values. This world also

includes social standards, which prohibit or permit, which tell us what is allowable, desirable,

obligatory or otherwise.

From the standpoint of its significance for the intellectual life of a given person or even a

nation it would be wrong to contrast, for example, some scientific discovery or invention to

Christian or Buddhist ethics. These are different voices in the single chorus of the spiritual life of

humanity. And any belittling of one or another voice is unworthy of a truly cultured person, just as

any discrimination against one nation is in itself a belittling of human dignity as a whole, and

exposes the discriminator as a chauvinist and lacking in respect not only for himself as an

individual but for his own nation. It is equally wrong to insist on any single standard of value

judgement for the cultural features of different peoples.

But it is not enough merely to acknowledge the legitimate right of every people to live in its

own specific way. One must also understand what this originality stands for. One culture may

raise its voice about something on which another has nothing to say. And when even one voice

is suppressed, the harmony of the chorus of the world culture cannot be complete.

Endless contradictions arise in the system of socio psychological stereotypes. The very

concept of values in their full sense presupposes a creative attitude to life and is incompatible

with standardisation of thought or behaviour. As the highest degree of spirituality, in the sense of

high value orientations, culture consequently presupposes the breaking down of stereotypes.

And it is those who break them that are the innovators. They create new values and, in so doing,

generate new stereotypes, a new style of thought and behaviour. Hence there is a struggle, and

this struggle involves losses; immortality may sometimes be won through premature death. Such

has been the fate of the revolutionaries of thought and action at all times and among all peoples. Man in the system of culture. Culture is the living process of the functioning of values in the

context of the existence of the individual and society. It is the process of their creation,

reproduction and use in historically changing ways. Culture arose and is developing together with

society, creating an enormous tradition. The history of culture is full of stagnant phenomena, rigid

dogmatic systems and conservatism, and also of revolutionary innovations. The previous

achievements of culture are not parted from us. Their finest examples continue to live and

"work". No child can become a developed personality without absorbing some of the treasures of

culture. Culture always survives those who have created it and that which it originally served. 282

The first stages of a child's growth pass in the family, where the elementary notions of

what is good and bad in the moral and aesthetic senses, of what is beneficial or harmful, are

acquired. This is where the foundation is laid of sensory experience, the power of imagination

and thought, and the elements of emotional culture. Admittedly, the educational effect of the

kindergarten or the creche or the school, which carry out a planned educational programme on

the emerging personality, are added to the experience of the family and thus bring with them the

experience of centuries, developing in the child such qualities as curiosity, love of country, and

so on.

Modern civilisation has enormously expanded the opportunities not only of human

knowledge, of physical, biochemical, physiological and intellectual forms of activity, but also the

various ways of developing them. Here an important role has been played by such disciplines as

psychology, neurobiology, and medicine, which have long made humanity their study. They are

constantly perfecting their research techniques in order to penetrate the mechanisms of life.

Great efforts are being made to find hitherto unknown human reserves in the hope of

discovering more effective ways by which the nerve centres and other body centres can generate

and transform bioenergy and information, of scientifically explaining the human ability to receive

various radiations from living and other objects and the information effects connected with these

radiations, which people have for long observed but which have not yet been properly

researched. The advances that science has already made in penetrating the secrets of the living

organism with the help of instruments of great resolving power give us hope and confidence that

we shall be able to understand many mysterious phenomena, and that this knowledge may trans

form the very style of man's philosophical and scientific thought, his idea of himself and his place

in the universe, of the factors that control his vital functions.

The sages of ancient India discovered astonishingly subtle and profound psycho-

biophysical connections between the human organism and cosmic and subterranean processes.

They knew much that even today is beyond the ken of European scientific thought, or that it

ignores, often trying to conceal its helplessness by asserting that oriental wisdom is mere

mysticism, and thus showing its inability to distinguish the rational but not yet fully

understandable essence from various figments of the imagination. It is sometimes difficult for us

to penetrate the profound language of symbolic forms in which this wisdom is couched, to get at

the essence of that wisdom. A full understanding of these complex problems can be achieved

only in the broad context of history and culture. Historical experience offers us some instructive

lessons for the present day. If we look around thoughtfully at the path humanity has travelled, it is

not difficult to see that the minds of the makers of culture have been guided by the desire to

achieve an understanding and a rational transformation of the human being himself, his bodily

and spiritual organisation, the preservation and strengthening of his health. Socio-political,

philosophical, religious, moral, aesthetic and all cultural efforts in general have tended towards

this goal. 283